The Riverside Group Limited (201815919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201815919

The Riverside Group Limited

11 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for a vehicle to be prevented from parking in front of his window.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

2. The landlord does not have a separate parking policy. However, the tenancy agreement includes a section about parking that states, amongst other things, that tenants must not park in such a way as to interfere with access to any adjoining or neighbouring properties or in a way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance or annoyance to others.

Background

3. The property is a ground floor flat in a converted period building that has a courtyard to the front. The resident has lived there since April 2013 on an assured shorthold tenancy.

Summary of events

4. In September 2018 the landlord wrote to all of the tenants in the building, asking them to be considerate when parking their vehicles in the parking area at the front of the building. After this, the resident emailed the landlord to thank it for the letter as ‘everything is great again’.
5. The resident then made a formal complaint in March 2019 about his neighbour parking in front of his window. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 April 2019. It said that it had spoken to the housing officers and reviewed the evidence, including the photos provided by the resident. It said that, unfortunately, the resident’s window was extremely close to the car park, and it could understand how a van parked outside, which was being used early in the morning, could cause a form of nuisance. The landlord said that the resident had had previous concerns about the parking of vehicles by the bins. It further said that the external communal area of the building would not have been designed for today’s lifestyle and there was limited space for tenants’ parking. It said that it had written to all the tenants in September 2018 and that the housing officer would now write to the neighbour to ask if they could start to park their vehicle elsewhere in the car park. It said it was hoping that tenants would be neighbourly but that if the matter was not resolved then it would consider a referral through to its independent mediation services. It asked the resident to work with it to find a suitable solution.
6. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 9 April 2019, who agreed to move his vehicle. However, the neighbour highlighted that there were other tenants who were affected by the parking, who did not complain, in spite of cars being parked nearer to their windows.
7. On 18 April 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the delay in dealing with the issue was unacceptable and that it needed to be dealt with it as fast as possible due to him being woken up by the neighbour’s vehicle, which was affecting his health and that the vehicle was also blocking his light. The resident said that, if the outside was not designed to be a car park, then the landlord should have moved that car a long time ago.
8. The landlord replied on the same day to say that there had been no intentional delay and that the housing officer had made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the neighbour. The landlord clarified the action that had been taken since the resident made his complaint. It said that the neighbour had been spoken to and it believed that he had changed how he was parking but that the resident was stating that it was still causing him a nuisance. In a phone call with the resident on 16 April 2019 the landlord had agreed that further contact would be made with the neighbour, being more specific about the problems that his vehicle was causing the resident. Unfortunately, the housing officer had not yet been able to make further phone contact with the neighbour. In relation to its previous comments about the area outside the building, the landlord stated that the area would not originally have been designed for parking. However, modern living meant that households now normally have one or more vehicles. It reminded the resident that he had himself previously used the area for parking his motorbike. The landlord said that under no circumstances would it want to stop the area being used for parking and that it had been explained to the resident that it could not physically remove the neighbour’s vehicle but that if the issue could not be resolved it would look to refer the matter to mediation services. It said that, depending on cost, it might also consider adding some advisory parking lines for tenants. The landlord then asked the resident to provide details of times and dates of when the vehicle caused a nuisance and to consider using the mobile noise app. The landlord concluded by stating that this now concluded the investigation of the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said that the resident had 30 days to contact it if he remained unhappy, at which point his complaint would be escalated to stage 2 of the procedure.
9. There was some further correspondence between the resident and landlord on 18 April 2019, with the resident being unhappy that the landlord had so far failed to make contact with the neighbour. The landlord pointed out that it had only been two days since it had agreed to further contact the neighbour. The landlord again reiterated that, for the purposes of the resident’s ongoing nuisance reports, he should be providing the housing officer with details of when the nuisance occurred. Then, if it was unable to make contact with the neighbour, the landlord would be able to review the evidence provided by the resident to decide on the most appropriate course of action.
10. On 25 April 2019 the resident emailed the landlord to say that he had spoken to the complaints department over three dozen times, and it could be resolved if he himself informed the neighbours or left a message under his door as the landlord seemed unable to write a letter or post it. The resident clarified that the vehicle in question was a van estate and not a small car and that the landlord could have sorted it out months ago. The resident said he had been complaining for many months and that was because the housing officer had said that she would write the neighbours a letter, but she never did anything.
11. On 26 April 2019 the landlord told the resident that the housing officer had recently spoken to the neighbour. It said that it believed that over the past three years the resident had engaged in conversations with the neighbour and left notes on his vehicle. It said that, given that the resident felt that parking was still causing a nuisance, it would again ask him to consider mediation as a way forward to find a reasonable solution for all involved. The landlord also said that, given recent communications, it would move his complaint onto the second stage. However, it asked the resident to explain what he thought should have been done to sort out his complaint at stage 1 and that he would be contacted within three working days of him telling it to move the complaint to stage 2.
12. On 3 December 2020 the landlord contacted the resident to say that it had been approached by this Service and would therefore be dealing with his complaint again. The landlord advised this Service that the complaint would be looked at under stage 1 of its complaints procedure.
13. On 11 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say he had emailed it dozens of times about the neighbour’s transit van being parked right next to the green bins, which not only blocked his window area but made it very difficult for anyone to use the main door if they were carrying large items. It was also very difficult to get to the back garden and was blocking the gardeners’ access to cut the hedge. The resident also mentioned that, in 2013, a van was being parked on the opposite side of the car park, affecting another tenant, which was removed within two weeks.
14. The landlord responded on the same day to say that the resident’s last correspondence with it was at the beginning of 2019 and that his complaint had been responded to at stage 1 of its procedures. It said that it recognised at that time that it could encourage discussion about use of the outside space if there was a proven nuisance. At that time the resident was asked if he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 but that there was no further contact from the resident. It asked the resident to confirm if his complaint was still that parked vehicles were blocking his view from a window and if so, was he asking the landlord to stop residents from parking at the front of the building.
15. The resident replied on 16 December 2020 saying: ‘can you move the van yes or no?’
16. On 18 December 2020 the landlord told the resident that it could not physically move the van as it was parked in a residents’ parking area at the front of the building and that it could not advise tenants where to park within the car park. It said that the resident’s view had always overlooked the car park. Furthermore, the compliance officer and fire compliance team did not have any concerns about health and safety issues regarding access to the building and the gardening contractors also did not have any issues with access. The landlord finished by saying that the complaint was not upheld and that the matter would now be closed.
17. Realising it had not provided details of how the resident could escalate his complaint, the landlord contacted the resident again on 23 December 2020 clarifying that it had investigated his complaint under stage 1 and that he had been advised on 18 December 2020 that it had not been upheld. It advised the resident that he needed to respond within 30 days if he remained dissatisfied, explaining why he wanted to proceed to stage 2 of the complaints procedure and what he thinks could have been done to resolve the complaint at the earlier stage.
18. Following further contact between this Service and the landlord during May and June 2021, the landlord explained that it had not heard from the resident following its email of 23 December 2020. This Service explained that the resident remained unhappy, at which point the landlord set up a new stage 1 complaint on 3 June 2021.
19. On 7 June 2021 the landlord sent the resident a new stage 1 response. It said that the original complaint could not be escalated to stage 2 as the resident had failed to advise it within 30 days of the previous stage 1 response that he remained unhappy. The landlord reiterated that it was unable to tell residents where to park within the parking area and that there were no health and safety concerns. The landlord therefore did not uphold the complaint.
20. As the resident remained unhappy, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 22 June 2021. The landlord said that it was unable to agree to the resident’s request for it to remove the neighbour’s vehicle. It said that the resident’s window was unfortunately extremely close to the car park, slightly set back with a hedge in front of it. It understood that over the years the resident had had other concerns about parking by the bins, so that limited the parking area available to other residents. In September 2018 and intermittently since then the previous housing officer had written to other tenants to ask them to park considerately. The landlord understood that a van would not be the most pleasant view but that, as the area was used as a car park, it was unsure where the neighbour could move his van to. It hoped that other tenants would be neighbourly and discuss and agree parking within this area. It was again suggesting that a referral be made to an independent mediation service, otherwise it was limited in what it could do.
21. In July 2021 the resident told this Service that the neighbour did not seem to be parking a transit van in the car park anymore and that it was now a red car instead, although he said that their parking in general had ruined the surface of the car park and that a ditch had formed in the area outside of his window. In September 2021 the resident asked the housing officer if the neighbours only park a red car there now or if they do sometimes park a transit van like they used to. The housing officer replied that she believed it was just the red car at present.

Assessment and findings

22. Following a detailed review of the evidence submitted by both parties, the Ombudsman’s investigation considers the action taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s requests for a neighbour’s van to be prevented from parking in front of his bedroom window and whether it followed its own policies and procedures, kept to the law and acted reasonably and proportionately in the circumstances.
23. The area to the front of the building has been re-purposed as a car park for the benefit of all the tenants. However, it was originally designed as a courtyard to the period building and its use as a car park inevitably entails some compromises. Due to the size of the area, cars are parked virtually right up to the front of the building, although the resident himself has the benefit of his window being slightly set back from the rest of the building frontage, behind a low hedge. Also, due to the size of the area, there is no designated parking for each flat and parking is on a first come first served basis.
24. As there is no designated parking, the neighbour was entitled to park his van in any available space. The landlord had no powers to compel the neighbour to move his van as there was no breach of the tenancy agreement. The landlord also had no powers to remove the van as it was legally parked. There were also no health and safety concerns about how the van was parked. However, the landlord did try and encourage considerate parking by writing to all the tenants in the building.
25. Furthermore, the landlord accepted that having a large van parked outside a window would not be the most pleasant thing and it therefore engaged with the neighbour to try and find a solution. The landlord believed that the neighbour had cooperated and altered the way he was parking after contact with him in early April 2019.
26. As conflict over the parking remained, the landlord suggested mediation on more than one occasion, to which the neighbour had previously said he was agreeable. The landlord was right to consider mediation as an option, to bring the parties together to find a mutually agreeable solution and this is often the most effective route to resolving a situation such as this. However, the resident did not respond to the suggestion of mediation, which limited the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter. With that in mind, it should be noted that the landlord cannot be expected to resolve such issues unilaterally, or to manage tenants’ behaviour on a daily basis. Instead, the cooperation of both parties is required to find a mutually agreeable solution which can be effective in the long term.
27. The resident has stated that the landlord has acted spitefully towards him as a response to other issues that he has raised. However, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord took his complaint seriously and sought to find solutions to the overall situation.
28. The resident has mentioned that a van belonging to another tenant used to get parked on the other side of the car park in 2013 and that this was removed by the landlord. The Ombudsman would not consider the historical events, thus is unable to comment further on it. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has acted reasonably and proportionately in relation to the resident’s current complaint.
29. The resident would need to make a new complaint to the landlord in relation to the ditch in front of his property that he says is a hazard.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for his neighbour’s vehicle to be prevented from parking in front of his window.

Reasons

31. There was no breach of the tenancy agreement based on which the landlord would be required to take any action against the neighbour. However, the landlord did try to find an informal solution to the matter by engaging with the neighbour and by offering mediation. This was a reasonable and proportionate response in the circumstances.