Notting Hill Genesis (202008951)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008951

Notting Hill Genesis

14 April 2021

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 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

The complaint is about:

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over the change in the parking policy at the property.
The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

In 2011, the resident moved to the property. After she reported expressing the importance of having a car park at that time, she stated that the landlord had emphasised that the property’s car park spaces were unallocated, meaning that residents were permitted to park there on a first come first served basis, providing that there was a parking space available. The resident said that she had another offer of alternative accommodation at the time which she had preferred, but she had accepted this current property mainly because of the car park, which her preferred property did not have.
In 2019, the landlord changed the terms and conditions of the property’s parking, with the resident reporting that she and other residents were now required to submit proof of ownership of a vehicle, and valid insurance, to it. The resident stated that she provided it with this information, and was given a discretionary green permit to park in the car park.

Summary of events

On 21 August 2020, the landlord wrote to all of the property’s housing scheme’s residents to inform them there had been a further change to the terms and conditions of the car parking there. It enclosed a new red permit for those residents with an allocated parking bay, with this replacing the previous green permit. Residents who did not have a new permit were asked to find alternative parking away from the restricted areas.
On 28 August 2020, the landlord advised the resident that she would be issued with a new parking permit for the property. This did not happen, however, and on 14 September 2020 she received a parking ticket for parking there without one of the new permits. On 18 September 2020, the landlord informed the resident that, contrary to its earlier advice, she would not be issued with a new permit.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord provided the information that it held for the property’s scheme’s residents to be considered for a parking permit. Of these residents, two had families with two or more children, one had an elderly relative living with them, and another had a long-term health condition. The information held for the resident, on the landlord’s system, was that she had no vulnerabilities or risks (mild asthma), with one child who was nine years old.
On 23 September 2020, the resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord in response to the above change to the terms and conditions of parking at the property, stating the following:

It had been explained to the resident that leaseholders had a greater priority for parking at the property’s scheme than social housing tenants, and that the landlord was obliged to act upon the complaints received from leaseholders in respect of parking there.
The resident felt that it was unfair to prioritise leaseholders for parking, and that this meant that social housing tenants were being “discriminated against”.
Her desired outcome to the complaint was for the recently introduced parking restrictions to be removed from the property.

On 24 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, confirming the following:

It understood why the resident was unhappy with the changes to the property’s parking; however, it highlighted that the resident “[did] not have a right to park in [her] tenancy agreement and any permissions given previously would have been given on a discretionary basis.”
If the resident was advised that the parking was not allocated when she signed the tenancy agreement then “this may have been the case at the time but this [did] not grant a permanent right.”
It had the right make changes to the parking regulations at the property’s scheme, which was “leasehold-lead”. This meant that there was above a certain percentage of leaseholders at the scheme, and therefore any changes would be implemented by the landlord’s leasehold team.
It stressed that leaseholders were “absolutely not being favoured” over social housing tenants. It highlighted that it must honour any resident who has a right to park in their tenancy or purchase agreement. As too many residents were using the car park, the landlord took the decision to make changes to the parking regulations, and “in the interests of safety”. This involved the withdrawal of discretionary permits, and thereby provided sufficient parking spaces for those residents with a right to park that “must unavoidably be at the expense of residents who do not have a right to park”.
It recognised that the resident wanted the new parking regulations to be removed; however, it was unable to do so for the reasons detailed above. The landlord did, however, recognise that “the implementation of the changes [had] been poor”, and believed that this would constitute a service failure. It therefore offered the resident £50 compensation for this.

On 24 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord by email, to request the escalation of her above complaint.
On 24 September 2020, the landlord provided a follow-up stage one complaint response to the resident to advise the following:

It wanted to resolve the resident’s complaint; however, the new parking regulations would not be reversed.
It could escalate the complaint, but this was not likely to lead to an increase in compensation, as its offer was made in line with its policy, and would not result in the parking changes being reversed, as it was entitled to amend the parking regulations.
It nevertheless increased its offer of compensation to the resident to £100 in recognition of its “very poor” communication in her case.

On 25 September 2020, the resident responded to the landlord again, explaining the following:

The compensation would not make up for the “distress and mental agony” that the resident would encounter looking for alternative parking.
She confirmed that information had previously been provided by her to the landlord regarding her health condition that she was in hospital for, and this issue was making it worse. She was also concerned about receiving parking penalty charge notices.
To resolve the matter, she would accept being relocated to another property locally that had parking for tenants, or alternatively for the landlord to suspend the property’s scheme’s parking enforcement until she was able to acquire another property, for which she was currently applying. If the landlord was unable to agree to either of these proposed solutions, she requested the escalation of the complaint to the second and final stage of its complaints procedure.

On 25 September 2020, the landlord responded to the resident again, and advised the following:

The compensation that it had offered was not to account for having to make alternative parking arrangements following the change in parking regulations at the property’s scheme. It acknowledged that this was inconvenient for the resident, but it could not offer compensation for this when the resident had no legal right to park at the property.
It had offered compensation as it acknowledged that the change in parking regulations “could clearly have been handled better”.
It could not relocate the resident to another property, but it could provide her with transfer application forms, or guide the resident to resources for other ways to move, such as a mutual exchange. Therefore, it escalated the complaint to the second and final stage of its complaints procedure.

On 17 November 2020, the landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident. It advised the following:

When the resident signed the property’s tenancy agreement, she was advised correctly that she could park in any available bay apart from the designated disabled bays. However, her tenancy agreement did not give her the right to park, and so a parking space was not allocated with her tenancy. Furthermore, the resident had not paid for a specific parking bay at any point. Unfortunately, this meant that there was no guarantee that she would continue to be able to park there in the future. The landlord apologised that this was not made clear to the resident before signing the tenancy agreement.
It had the right to review the parking system to ensure its safety and effectiveness. The landlord also highlighted that it must ensure that any residents who have purchased an allocated parking space can access this at all times, together with blue badge holders being able to access disabled bays. It aimed to achieve this when it changed the parking regulations in March 2019. This system did not work as well as the landlord had hoped and resulted in several complaints being received from residents who were unable to access their own bays. It had a responsibility to ensure that the car park was well managed, and it therefore reviewed the parking at the property’s scheme in July 2020, prior to issuing its notification to all residents there on 21 August 2020 about the scheme’s current parking system.
It highlighted that it did not write separately to all residents to inform them of the upcoming change to the parking system. The landlord also did not carry out any formal resident consultation as part of the review, which it should have done under its parking management procedure. It expressed “a lack of clear communication between [the landlord] and [its] residents, and internally between the two different departments.”
The landlord also recognised that there had been evidence of its poor communication, including when advising the resident on 28 August 2020 that she would be issued with a permit under the new regulations. This misled the resident and resulted in her getting a parking ticket, which the landlord had arranged to be cancelled.
The landlord did have four parking bays left after issuing new parking permits to those residents with a right to park, which it allocated in accordance with its parking management procedure, which gives priority to holders of a blue disabled parking badge, and large families. It confirmed that it “had considered the medical issues and other vulnerabilities [it was] aware of and allocated the 4 parking bays in line with this”.
The landlord was later provided with information on the resident’s medical condition, although by this point the remaining parking permits had been issued. It did highlight that it would start a waiting list for a parking permit and confirmed that the resident would be at the top of the list, which meant that she would be offered the next available parking bay when another social housing tenant moved out or no longer needed one.
It recognised that this was not the resident’s desired outcome and apologised for the disappointment and inconvenience that this would cause her. However, the landlord did need to consider permit-holding residents fairly while considering her request for one. It also encouraged the resident to follow-up on her application for a blue disabled parking badge to provide her with additional parking options on the street outside the property’s scheme, as well as making he eligible to use the disabled bays inside the scheme’s car park.
In summary, although it applied the priority system of its parking management procedure correctly, it did not manage the review of the parking system well. The landlord recognised that it did not consult with residents, which would have given the resident the opportunity to tell the landlord about her medical conditions. It was unable to provide her with a parking permit as there were none available.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 compensation, which was broken down into: £50 for its failure to consult with residents during the parking review; £200 for its poor communication about the new parking system and for incorrectly advising the resident that she would get a parking permit; and £100 for its delayed stage two final complaint response.
It committed to learning from this complaint and would be agreeing a “more joined-up approach to managing shared areas in future.”

The resident subsequently complained to this Service that the landlord had issued the maximum number of parking permits for the property’s scheme without issuing her with one, despite her providing it with evidence of her medical condition. She therefore wanted to know its criteria for determining who would receive a parking permit and why, as well as seeking for it to provide her with a parking permit for the property, the £350 compensation that it had offered her above, and for the parking penalties issued to her due to this matter to be revoked.
The landlord then informed this Service that it was willing to proceed with paying the compensation that it had awarded to the resident, but that the limited number of parking spaces meant that it was unable to provide her with a parking permit as this would have to be taken from another resident.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over the change in parking policy

As per the landlord’s parking management procedure, it should introduce a controlled parking scheme if ongoing problems with parking are experienced. Before controlled parking is agreed, it should consult with residents and give them the opportunity to share their views on it. A ballot should then be held, allowing every resident to vote, with the majority prevailing.

In this instance, the landlord carried out its own review of the parking at the property’s scheme in July 2020, in response to complaints received from residents with a right to park there about being unable to access their own parking bays. In doing so, the landlord acted reasonably in carrying out the review, which was in line with the above requirement from its parking management procedure for it to do so, to ensure that it was continuing to offer accessible parking to those who had the right to this.
The landlord nevertheless acknowledged on 17 November 2020 that it had failed to consult with the property’s scheme’s residents about their parking system to allow them to give their views on the proposed changes to this and, in the resident’s case, to provide further medical information for it to consider. Instead, having determined the changes needed in order to provide parking spaces for those who had a right to park in the car park, it communicated this to all residents in its letter of 21 August 2020 without consultation, contrary to its parking management procedure. This resulted in the resident’s stage one complaint to the landlord on 23 September 2020.
As per the landlord’s parking management procedure, when allocated limited parking spaces to residents it should prioritise residents with a disabled blue badge, and large families. It should also use a waiting list where necessary.
The landlord evidenced on 18 September 2020 using this procedure to allocate the remaining four parking permits at the property’s scheme following the change to the parking system there by doing so to residents with larger families, an elderly relative living with them and a long-term health condition. It acknowledged on 17 November 2020 that it did not have all of the information about the resident’s medical condition; however, it can only reasonably be expected to have acted upon the information that it held at the time of its allocation decision, with this being the case for all residents at the scheme.
In dealing with the resident’s complaint, the landlord evidenced taking responsibility for its failures in service on 24 and 25 September and 17 November 2020. It accepted that it did not follow its own parking management procedure in changing the parking system at the property’s scheme. In making these changes, the landlord was acting to fulfil its obligations to residents who had paid for a parking space. However, it did not consult with residents as it should have done under the procedure, and so it offered the resident £50 compensation for this on 17 November 2020. In terms of its poor communication, including wrongly advising the resident she would be receiving a new permit, the landlord awarded her £200 compensation. It also confirmed that it would learn from this complaint, and improve its approach to managing shared areas in the future.
As per the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture procedure, where the failures have resulted in a “high” impact on the resident, the following is relevant:

A serious failure in service standards.
The issue is clearly an injustice to the resident causing a significant level of distress and inconvenience.
A persistent failure over a prolonged period of time.
Compensation up to £250 is to be considered.

The landlord explained on 24 and 25 September and 17 November 2020 why it was unable to either provide the resident with a new parking permit, or to reverse the changes to the new parking system due to the permits already being fully allocated to the other residents entitled to them under its parking management procedure, which was reasonable under the circumstances. This is because it described how to provide a new permit or reverse the changes would require a permit to be taken from another resident who was entitled to one, which not be fair to them. In order to put things right, the landlord therefore instead offered the above compensation to the resident that was consistent with both its own compensation and goodwill procedure, and this Service’s remedies guidance.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged its failures in service. It explained the reasons why it could not provide the resident with a new parking permit for which she had no legal right. The landlord also offered her compensation that fairly reflected the detriment experienced by her as a result of its poor management of the change in parking system in the absence of a free parking permit that it could give her.
The landlord additionally confirmed that it would learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaint by using this to improve its approach to managing shared areas in the future. Moreover, it offered her alternatives to a parking permit including transfer application forms, resources for other ways to move such as a mutual exchange, the next available parking bay at the property’s scheme via her position at the top of its waiting list for one, and encouragement to apply for a blue disabled parking badge to enable her to park on the street outside or in the scheme’s disabled bays.
It is nevertheless of concern that the resident reported that, despite the landlord having confirmed on 17 November 2020 that it had arranged to cancel a parking ticket for her, she still required parking penalties issued to her due to this matter to be revoked. While the removal of such penalties is an outcome that is not within this Service’s authority to provide, the fact that the landlord was reportedly previously able to cancel a parking ticket for her has meant that it has been recommended to respond to her request for it to do so for any other such penalties below.

Complaint handling

As per the landlord’s complaints procedure, it should response to stage one complaints within ten working days, with stage two final complaint responses to be issued within 20 working days.
Following receipt of the stage one complaint from the resident on 23 September 2020, the landlord acted swiftly to try to resolve this; in responding on the following day, and ultimately escalating the complaint within two working days on 25 September 2020. However, it then failed to issue its stage two final complaint response within a timely manner to the resident, with this being sent on 17 November 2020, which was 17 working days later than the above timescale for it to do so.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 17 November 2020 for the above delay in its response, and offered her £100 compensation for this. This was fair and reasonable in recognising the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that this delay would have caused her, being consistent with both this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure. The latter recommended that it consider awarding up to £100 compensation for “medium” impact on the resident for factors including it markedly failing to meet required standards and issues taking longer than expected to resolve.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to her concerns over the change in the parking policy at the property satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord recognised that it should have followed its parking management procedure in respect of the changes to the parking at the property, and recognised its associated failures in service.
The resident experienced inconvenience as a result of these changes; however, she resident had no legal right to park at the property, and therefore the landlord’s obligations to her in this regard were limited.
The landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the resident’s complaint other than its delayed stage two final complaint response, and provided an explanation of the reasons for the parking changes, as well as detailing why it could not provide her with her desired outcome in resolving her complaint.
The compensation awarded was in line with the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures procedure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £350 compensation that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already, and responds to her request that it revoke the parking penalties issued to her due to this matter.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.