Vivid Housing Limited (202104383)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104383

Vivid Housing Limited

31 August 2022

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 how the landlord allocated the parking bays for the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house. The resident moved into the property in February 2020.
3. The resident has had an ongoing dispute with the landlord since October 2020 relating to changes the landlord made to how parking bays were allocated to properties in the estate. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2021 and asked to raise a formal complaint into the matter. He described the elements of the complaint as:
   1. The two parking bays outside his property he had been using since he moved in had been allocated to another household.
   2. The distance he had to walk to the new bays had had an adverse effect on his existing health conditions.
   3. He was not made aware of the allocation of parking bays when he accepted the property and was only made aware of the situation 16 to18 months after moving in.
   4. The landlord has discriminated against him by allocating the bays furthest away from the property.
4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord:
   1. Explained that the allocation of parking bays was made by the builder prior to the properties being occupied and before the development was handed over to the landlord. It apologised that this information had not been provided when the resident moved into the property and that it would review the information it provides to prospective tenants in the future.
   2. Disputed that it had discriminated against the resident as the allocation of the bays was undertaken by the builder and it was unaware of the resident’s parking arrangements until he raised the matter. It also explained that it had no record of any disabilities or illnesses highlighted by the resident when he moved in, and was only made aware of these issues recently.
   3. Confirmed that each property was allocated two parking bays on the site plans and that if the resident was able to come to an agreement with one of his neighbours to use a parking bay closer to his property, the landlord would have no objection.
5. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues of the complaint as the landlord changing his parking bay allocation despite being aware of his medical conditions. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested to have the parking bays returned to his property and to receive suitable compensation for the inconvenience of not being able to park outside his property.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

6. The opening page of the tenancy agreement describes the property. This states that “if there is a plan attached to this agreement, it will show the extent of the Property. It will also show whether there is any allocated parking space and if so, where that is”.
7. Section 18 of the tenancy agreement concerns parking and roadways. Paragraph 18(i) states that “you or any person who resides at or visits the Property must not: park or cause to be parked any vehicle on the Property or on any land belonging to us except in defined parking areas and only in a manner permitted or required by us or in accordance with any regulations or byelaws”.
8. The landlord’s complaints policy describes the two-stage complaint process it follows when a complaint is made. The policy states that the landlord would not normally consider a complaint into matters that happened more than six months prior to the complaint being raised.

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has stated that the landlord took away the parking bays from outside his property despite being aware of his medical conditions. He also noted that his health had worsened as a result of having to walk further to the new parking bays. The resident provided the landlord with a doctor’s letter concerning his health.
10. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
11. In February 2022, the resident raised two further complaints relating to ball games being played in the street, and how the landlord handled the painting of markings on the parking bays. The landlord opened formal complaints into both of these issues and they are currently progressing through its complaint procedure. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this report will not consider elements which are part of the resident’s new complaints with the landlord.
12. The resident has stated that he feels discriminated against by the landlord as it had not taken his disabilities into account and has accused the landlord of deliberately placing his parking bays as far away from his property as possible due to his heritage. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord was discriminatory in its decision making because matters of discrimination, including racism, are legal issues which are better suited for the court to decide. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable.

How the landlord allocated the parking bays for the resident’s property

13. The tenancy agreement, as described above, forms the legal contract between the landlord and the resident, and his acceptance of this confirms his agreement to be bound by its terms. This agreement states that he is only to park in the parking spaces designated to the property, which are not the spaces directly outside of his property.
14. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2021 and provided a copy of the site plan with the allocated parking bays for the resident’s property highlighted. The landlord wrote to all residents in the estate informing them of which parking bays were allocated to which property. The landlord acted reasonably, and in line with the tenancy agreement, in informing all residents which parking bays they were to use and there is no evidence that the resident was being treated differently from other residents being asked to use their assigned parking spaces or that the parking bay allocation had changed since being drawn up by the site builder during the construction of the estate.
15. The resident has stated that he was informed by the landlord when he moved in that he would be able to park outside his property. The landlord has told the resident that it had no record of it providing this information. As stated above, the landlord would not normally consider an element of a complaint which occurred more than six months from when it was reported. This is also in line with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
16. Whilst the issue only came to light following the landlord’s request that all residents park in their allocated spaces, given the passage of time, it was reasonable that the landlord was unable to specifically address issues of the complaint relating to when the resident accepted the property or state with any certainty what information was given to the resident verbally about parking bays and whether the resident requested a copy of the site plan at this time. It should be noted that the landlord has not disputed the resident’s recollection of events, but due to the time that has elapsed, it was unable to verify what was discussed during this time period. Whilst we do not dispute the resident’s record of events, there is no written confirmation to confirm that the resident had been allocated the parking bays outside of his property and the site plans do not show any alterations from when they were first drawn up. Even so, if there was a verbal agreement, the landlord would be entitled to remove permission at any stage as it saw fit. In short, there is no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably by stating that the resident would need to use the bays allocated to him in line with the tenancy agreement.
17. It should also be noted that the landlord was not enforcing the use of assigned parking bays when the resident moved into the property in February 2020. It was not until October 2020, after issues with parking had become a concern, that the landlord wrote a letter to all residents asking them to only use their assigned parking bays. However, the landlord has acknowledged that more information should be provided to prospective tenants about the provision of parking and that in the future it would provide site plans and parking information as part of the property handover. It also informed the resident that it would review its tenancy agreements to determine whether specific details of parking spaces assigned to a property should be included in the agreement in the future.
18. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take as it showed that it had learned from the resident’s complaint and that it had looked to improve its policies and procedures as they related to parking. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
19. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately during the complaint. It explained to the resident which parking bays were assigned to his property, provided the site plan with all parking bays listed, described how the site plan was drawn up, and explained why it was not able confirm what information it provided when he accepted the property. There is no evidence that the parking bays assigned to the resident’s property have changed and that the two bays marked on the site plan are the two bays the landlord asked the resident to use in its correspondence starting in October 2020.
20. The landlord has also offered to write to the local authority on the resident’s behalf if he wished to apply for a disabled parking permit (a blue badge). This was an appropriate offer from the landlord after being informed by the resident of his disabilities and the difficulties he had in walking to the parking bays. If the resident proceeded with an application for a blue badge, the decision would be made solely by the local authority and the landlord would have no further involvement. It should also be noted that if the resident were to be awarded a disabled parking bay, there would be no guarantee that this bay would be positioned closer to his property than the currently allocated parking bays.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it allocated the parking bays for the resident’s property.