London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202001148)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001148

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

21 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 the landlord’s refusal to provide the resident with access to allow them to park in their garden.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident and his wife are joint assured tenants of the landlord. The property is a three bedroom house with a garden. The tenancy commenced on 24 November 1997. The property is part of an estate of 36 residential units. The resident’s garden is accessed via a communal grassed area and footpath.
3. In 2015 the landlord considered and then declined the resident’s request for the grassed area outside their property to be dug up to provide additional parking spaces. Instead the landlord agreed to installing two disabled bays on the hard standing to the rear of the properties, close to the resident’s home. Just prior to those works going ahead, there were 47 marked parking bays including four disabled bays, 11 hard standing unmarked parking bays and nine garage units.

Summary of events

4. At some point in late September 2019, the resident’s front garden wall was partially taken down as the landlord deemed it to be unsafe and dangerous. The intention was for the landlord to rebuild the wall.
5. On 5 October 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord to request that, rather than rebuilding their garden wall, the landlord remove the wall permanently and provide them with access to allow them to park in their garden. The resident explained that their wife was disabled and that being able to park in their garden would be a great benefit to them.
6. The landlord carried out a site visit on 28 October 2019, following which it contacted the resident to advise that it would not be possible to agree to the resident’s request. The landlord explaining that here was already a disabled parking bay a short distance from the property.
7. On 1 December 2019, the resident emailed the landlord express their dissatisfaction at the landlord’s response and to again request that it agree to providing them access to park in their garden. The resident said that to access the two disabled parking bays they had to bump up on the grass, which, due to her disabilities, caused pain to his wife, and that if a neighbour had a disabled guest visiting they could be left with nowhere to park, their garage was too small for a disabled person to use and the other disabled parking spaces were too far away.
8. On 22 January 2020, the landlord visited the residents at their home to discuss their request. The landlord explained that two additional, marked disabled bays were completed in 2015, that the layout of the scheme would not support off road parking as the resident would need to drive over the communal grassed area to access their garden and that the scheme had more than adequate spaces to park. The landlord also noted that it had suggested that it speak to the residents’ neighbours who also used one of the disabled parking bays, as this was causing the issue with residents being unable to exit the disabled parking bay without having to drive over the grassed area. The landlord noted that the resident asked it not to contact the other neighbours as they did not get on. The landlord also suggested that the resident park in the first disabled parking bay meaning there would be no need to bump up on the grass but noted that the resident was not happy with that suggestion.
9. On 27 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate their complaint and to request that the landlord provide the full reason for its refusal of their request to park in their garden.
10. The landlord issued its final response on 25 February 2020. The landlord confirmed that its position remain the same as in its earlier responses: that the layout of the scheme would not support off road parking due to the location of the grassed area; that the scheme had adequate spaces to park; and that in 2015 it had carried out works to install two additional, marked, disabled parking bays following a review of the area. The landlord said that it understood that the resident was disappointed with its decision but it would not be agreeing to their request.

Assessment and findings

11. There is no evidence in the tenancy agreement of the resident having the right  to a parking space, or access to a disabled parking bay that would enabled them to park near to the property.
12. The resident has access to one of two disabled parking bays, in reasonably close proximity to their property, which the landlord installed in 2015 following an earlier request from the resident.
13. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident had concerns regarding parking and accessing the disabled parking bays, the landlord was not obliged to agree to their request that it carry out works to the communal grassed area in order to enable the resident to park in their garden.
14. Nevertheless, following the resident’s request, the landlord took reasonable steps to explore the request made by the resident. This it did by visiting the site and carrying out further investigation, including considering the previous works that had been carried out with regards to the parking. This was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take and evidenced that it was giving due consideration to the resident’s request.
15. Having completed its investigations, the landlord decided that it was unable to agree to the resident’s request on the basis that the layout of the scheme would not support off road parking due to the location of the grassed area, marked disabled bays were completed in 2015, the resident has access to those bays and the bays were located reasonably close to their property, and that overall the scheme had more than adequate spaces to park. These were all reasonable grounds for the landlord to refuse the request. The landlord having to consider matters such as how effective the works would be, how practical it would be for it to be implemented, the cost of carrying out the works and any changes that had already been made .
16. In addition to written responses, the landlord also visited the resident to discuss its findings and to explain the reasons why it was refusing the resident’s request. During the visit with the resident, the landlord made a number of reasonable alternative suggestion with regards to resolving the resident’s concerns about accessing the disabled bays including: the resident parking in the first disabled bay and the landlord speaking to their neighbour about their parking, which the landlord suggested may be causing the issues with the resident having bump over the grassed area to access the second bay. The resident declined both of these suggestions.

Determination (decision)

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its refusal to provide the resident with access to allow them to park in their garden.

Reasons

18. The landlord considered the resident’s request, visited the site and investigated what actions it had previously taken with regards to parking at the scheme. Having satisfied itself that the layout of the scheme would not support off road parking due to the location of the grassed area, that marked disabled bays were completed in 2015 and that the resident had access to those bays, it was reasonable for the landlord to decline the resident’s request. When the landlord met with the resident, it made reasonable alternative suggestion in order to help find a resolution to the resident’s concerns which were declined by the resident.