Notting Hill Genesis (202103280)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103280

Notting Hill Genesis

8 October 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 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 about how the landlord responded to a request to renew a parking permit.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant, and the property is situated on a site that contains several developments. While the date section of the tenancy agreement is unreadable, the accompanying documents are dated June 2009. The documents therefore suggest the tenancy began around this time. The property is described as a two-bedroom self-contained flat on the sixth floor.
  2. The resident is receiving medication for sickle cell anaemia which he has described as long term and serious. He has said that, although he is trying to manage the condition, there are occasions when he can barely walk.
  3. The resident was previously allocated a space in an underground car park at the property, but this space was reallocated in 2018. The circumstances surrounding the reallocation are unclear.
  4. The resident wants the landlord to give him a new allocation, close to the entrance of the building, due to the problems caused by his health condition. Further, he is experiencing financial difficulty due to the ongoing weekly cost of visitor’s parking permits. He has received a notification of unpaid parking fines from a legal firm, and he considers the landlord to be responsible for the situation.
  5. The landlord has said that the allocation of parking permits is managed by the site’s managing agent, and it has no control over either the issuing of permits or the agent’s waiting list. It contacted the agent with a view to prioritising the resident’s application, but the managing agent declined its request.
  6. The section of the tenancy agreement that is dedicated to ‘Roadways and Parking Spaces’ is blank. Since there are no listed terms and conditions to govern this aspect of the agreement, the agreement confirms that no parking provisions are included in the resident’s tenancy.
  7. The site’s ‘Parking Rules and Regulations’ document sets out the conditions concerning various aspects of parking at the property. It includes sections concerning the issuing of permits, registration of vehicles, allocation of parking areas and enforcement. The document directs all queries to the ‘Estates Management Suite’. The managing agent is also referenced three times in the document by name.
  8. The references relate to the agent’s management of parking enforcement at the site, the agent’s discretion in relation to the issuing of parking fobs, and the extent of the agent’s liability for damage to vehicles. There is no mention of the resident’s landlord in the document, but it does suggest the site’s developer is the owner of the land and the management agent is appointed to act on their behalf.
  9. The above document confirms that annual permits are issued subject to availability and are not guaranteed to be renewed.  Further, to ensure vehicles are correctly registered, resident’s must notify the estate management team of any changes to their vehicle details. This information shows that, in addition to the above-mentioned obligations, the managing agent is responsible for maintaining records relating to parking at the site.
  10. The landlord’s own parking management policy and procedure documents are generic and are intended to apply to all the landlord’s sites. Whilst they contain no insight into the specific parking arrangements in place at the property, they do not list the managing agent as one of the landlord’s preferred parking control companies.
  11. The landlord has provided a letter that was sent to all residents of the property in August 2018. The letter is addressed from the ‘Estate Management Team’ and confirms that, following changes to the site’s parking strategy, the property had been allocated on street, rather than underground, parking zones. The location of these zones was detailed on a map that accompanied this letter.
  12. The landlord has given information that includes the tenancy agreement, the site’s car parking policy, the landlord’s parking management policy and procedure documents, its complaints procedure, and its internal notes along with relevant correspondence.
  13. The tenant has given information which includes the legal notification of unpaid parking fines.

Summary of events

  1. On 9 April 2021 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that:

a.     He had been a resident at the property since 2008 and he was allocated a parking space at this time.

b.     When he tried to renew his parking space in 2018, he was told it was no longer available although he would be placed on a waiting list. After two years he was still waiting for an allocation.

c.      He had previously made both the landlord and the estate management team aware of his medical condition.

d.     Both parties had told him they are not responsible for parking and, as a result, they had both let him down.

e.     The situation was causing him financial difficulty since visitor’s parking cost him £20 per week.

f.        He was advised to shield during lockdown, but he had no choice but to move his car on multiple occasions despite being ‘severely sick’.

g.     He had previously complained to the landlord and did not receive a response. On 9 April 2021 he was then advised his complaint had been closed.

h.     He had been a victim of discrimination on the part of the landlord.

  1. On 10 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. This response was largely based on information it received from the managing agent during its investigation. The response included the following information:

a.     The landlord did not own any car parking land or car parking spaces at the site.

b.     No resident at the site had a designated parking space, only a designated zone. When a zone reached its allocation of spaces no further annual permits would be issued.

c.      Each zone had a waiting list but, since new availability was based on existing permit holders returning their allocation, it was impossible to provide the resident with a timescale for allocating him a permit.

d.     The Housing Officer that previously managed spaces allocated to the landlord was no longer in their role. Consequently, there was no information available to fully confirm what had happened to the resident’s previous allocation.

  1. On 17 May 2021 the resident restated his request to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This was on the basis the landlord’s stage one response had not resolved his problem.
  2. On 14 June 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It said:

a.     The allocation of parking permits was managed by the managing agent, not their Housing Officer.

b.     The parking rules document confirmed allocations were subject to availability.

c.      The landlord had no control over the waiting list or the issuing of parking permits.

d.     Despite reaching out to the managing agent, the landlord had been unable to persuade it to prioritise the resident’s request for a parking allocation.

It also acknowledged there had been a delay in the landlord’s initial handling of the resident’s complaint. It awarded him £70 in compensation to recognise there had been a service failure on its part.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident previously made the landlord aware of alleged discrimination in its dealings with him. However, he has not raised any concerns to this service in relation to either discrimination or the landlord’s complaint handling. Nevertheless, this assessment has considered the evidence with the resident’s allegation in mind. Whilst this service is unable to reach findings as to whether, or not, discrimination has occurred, no information has been seen that suggests the landlord has not fairly considered the individual circumstances of the individual resident.
  2. The evidence shows the landlord was not obliged to offer the resident a parking permit, irrespective of the circumstances, as parking is not included in the tenancy agreement. Although it is recognised that the resident’s application was made under difficult circumstances, following issues with his health and financial situation, this did not alter the landlord’s position, or obligations, in that regard.
  3. Similarly, based on the tenancy agreement along with the landlord’s other documents, there is no information to show the landlord is obliged to reimburse any parking fines or costs incurred by the resident.
  4. Given the site’s parking rules document does not mention the landlord, there is no conflicting evidence to show it was responsible for parking allocations at the time the resident sought to renew his permit. Because the document makes several references to the role of the management agent, it suggests they are the party responsible for managing parking at the property.
  5. The letter to all residents from August 2018 confirms that changes had been made to the site’s parking policy over time. However, the letter provides little information as to the nature of these changes, beyond outlining the location of the property’s on street parking zones, and it is not sufficiently detailed to explain why the resident lost his initial allocation. In any case, because it is a legal document, the tenancy agreement is most valuable evidence we have seen, because it confirms the obligations of the respective parties.
  6. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that efforts were made to resolve the situation, on the resident’s behalf, through the managing agent. Given the landlord had no legal obligations to the resident in relation to parking, this was good practice on the part of the landlord, which has demonstrated a willingness to proactively seek a solution in the interests of the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a parking permit.

Reasons

  1. As confirmed by the tenancy agreement, the landlord is not obliged to provide the resident with a parking provision. There is no evidence to show the landlord is responsible for the resident’s costs, or that the landlord is currently able to arrange or distribute parking allocations. The landlord showed good practice by seeking a solution to the resident’s problem.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to liaise with the management agent to confirm whether it is entitled to an annual allocation of permits. The landlord to update the resident in writing when a response has been received.