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

Orbit Group Limited (202203454)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203454

Orbit Group Limited

17 July 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 relating to:
    1. parking issues and information relating to parking, and;
    2. parking fines.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2009. The tenancy agreement does not include an allocated parking space in the car park.
  2. The landlord wrote to residents in July 2021 about changes to the parking management company. The new parking management company then wrote in August 2021 advising residents to register their vehicles online. These letters were written without the resident’s names on the envelopes or letters.
  3. It is understood the resident believed these letters to be junk mail and recycled them without opening. The resident received several parking fines as he had not registered his vehicle with the parking management company.
  4. The resident did not pay these fines and went to County Court. The Claimant (parking management company) did not attend court and as a result the case was struck out.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord about issues arising from the implementation of the parking management company and the fines. The complaint was not upheld. The landlord believes it and the parking management company had adequately informed the residents of these changes. The landlord advised due to previous misuse and to ensure parking is protected for its residents there had been parking management for several years. The residents had been asked to register, and if this had been done the fines would not have been issued. Due to the continuing dissatisfaction, the resident brought his complaint to this Service.
  6. As a resolution the resident would like a meeting with the landlord and a written apology for the landlord allegedly slamming the telephone down during a call.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
  3. This Service has seen evidence that on 7 October 2022 the parking fine element of this complaint was heard in Court and the case was struck out.
  4. After reviewing all the evidence, it has been determined that the parking fine element of the complaint does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  5. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  6. This Service has not seen evidence the allegation of a staff member slamming the telephone down on the resident as having been investigated through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, it has been determined that this element of the complaint does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Parking issues and information relating to parking.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. In its car parking management policy, the landlord stated it would consult with residents when new parking management contractors are appointed, or existing contracts renewed.
  4. The landlord sent an estate letter to residents outlining the changes to the parking management. This letter advised these changes had been agreed with engaged customers and the Property Manager. This Service has not seen evidence of attempted consultation with the resident or whether there had been recent recruitment to become an engaged resident. This letter, and the letters from the parking management company informed residents what to do to ensure they could park unhindered. The parking management company also renewed the car park signage to reiterate the information.
  5. The estate letter and the parking management company letters were delivered without names on the envelopes which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is a valid form of communication. This Service has seen a photograph of the parking management company posting a letter to the resident, it is reasonable to accept this was delivered.
  6. This Service has not seen evidence the landlord adhered to its car parking management policy as the letter did not consult about the changes. In accordance with the Scheme, this Service finds there was a service failure by the landlord.
  7. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, although it is unlikely the outcome would have been vastly different if the landlord had consulted, the resident would be well versed in the process and less likely to have experienced distress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to parking issues and information relating to parking.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £75 compensation in recognition of the service failure.
  2. The landlord is to offer a meeting with the resident. The purpose of this is to provide an opportunity to discuss the concerns regarding the parking management company. The resident is not obliged to attend if he does not wish to.
  3. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to review its consultation processes to ensure a similar situation does not reoccur.