Ocean Housing Limited (202220564)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220564

Ocean Housing Limited

31 October 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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking arrangements.

Background

2. The resident has a secure tenancy and lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow, which is in a group of bungalows next to a block of sheltered accommodation flats. The bungalows and flats are managed by the same landlord. There is onsite parking at the flats.
3. The resident requested a parking space at the flats over several years. In 2016 she complained when she was taken off a waiting list for a parking space. In its response, the landlord said she had been added to the waiting list in error. It said parking spaces were solely for residents in the flats. It apologised for the error.
4. In September 2022, the landlord carried out a consultation about proposed changes to the parking spaces with the residents of the flats.
5. On 13 September 2022, the resident complained that she had not been consulted and that she had been treated differently to the residents in the flats.
6. In its response on 28 September 2022, the landlord said the resident had not been consulted because she was not affected by the proposed changes. It said her property had been let with no allocated parking and this had not changed since its response to her complaint in 2016. It said there was limited parking at the flats, and it was unable to designate any spaces for residents in the bungalows.
7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 24 October 2022. She said the landlord was not listening to residents in the bungalows. She said its position was unfair as the bungalows were for residents who were elderly and had disabilities and the landlord was not meeting its duty of care towards them.
8. In its final response on 21 November 2022, the landlord said it had carried out the consultation correctly as the proposals only affected residents of the flats. It said it had explored options with the council to increase the amount of parking available but had not been able to do so. It said it recognised it had a duty of care and made reasonable adjustments where possible. It said it did not consider the request for parking was a reasonable adjustment that it could accommodate because it did not have land available for additional parking.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied that she had not been consulted and escalated her complaint to this Service. She said before the flats were changed into sheltered accommodation, there was parking for all residents. She said parking was now only for residents of the flats and she felt discriminated against.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident raised points in her complaint about the parking arrangements at the flats before they were converted into sheltered housing. This Service has noted that this was several years ago. Under paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, this Service will not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. Because of this, this Service will not investigate parking arrangements at the flats before the conversion to sheltered accommodation.
11. This investigation will look at matters related to proposals made by the landlord in 2022, and whether the landlord followed its policies and acted reasonably.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking arrangements

12. The occupancy agreement between the landlord and resident sets out the landlord’s responsibilities and its obligations to the resident.
13. This Service has noted that there is no reference in the resident’s occupancy agreement to the provision of parking spaces. Because of this, it is this Service’s view that the landlord does not have a general obligation to provide the resident with a parking space.
14. The resident told this Service that she has a disability parking permit and cannot park outside her home. She said she parks her car 200 meters away. Because of this, this Service has considered whether the landlord had any other obligations to the resident.
15. The Regulator of Social Housing’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 says landlords will demonstrate they understand the different needs of residents, including in relation to equality and additional support needs. Under the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents with a protected characteristic. This includes people with a disability.
16. This Service has noted that although the landlord had no obligation to provide parking for the resident, it looked at alternative options. In its final response, the landlord said it had explored options to provide parking on land behind the bungalows. It said the land was owned by the local council, and it had proposed to jointly fund parking spaces with the council, but it had not been able to progress the plan. It said it looked at other solutions, but options were limited as the roads in the area were public highways. This Service finds that by looking at alternatives, the landlord went beyond its obligations, acted reasonably, and considered its responsibilities to make reasonable adjustments.
17. The resident complained that she was not consulted about changes to parking arrangements at the flats. The Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard 2017 also says landlords must give residents a wide range of opportunities to influence matters affecting the management of their homes. In its final response, the landlord said the resident was not consulted as she was not affected by the proposals because she had no entitlement to park at the flats. This Service has noted that the resident’s tenancy agreement provides no entitlement to a parking space. It was reasonable, therefore, for the landlord to exclude the resident from the consultation.
18. This Service has found that the landlord’s position in its final response was reasonable. This is because it was not under a general obligation to provide parking to the resident. It also considered its obligations to make reasonable adjustments, and there was no requirement to consult the resident. Because of this, this Service has found that there was no maladministration.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to provide parking for the resident.