Network Homes Limited (202116494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116494

Network Homes Limited

17 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request for a parking bay.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord at the property. The property is a flat in a communal building; the landlord does not own the freehold of the building but does own the head lease for the properties within the building. The landlord sublets the properties to tenants, including the resident. A managing agent is employed by the freeholder of the building, with management of the parking spaces outside of the building coming within the managing agents remit.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 17 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to enquire if it was possible to rent a parking space. She explained that when she purchased the property (March 2020) she was not aware that she would not be able to apply for a permit for street parking. The resident informed the landlord that she had a medical condition that meant she depended heavily on her car.
The landlord replied on 18 November 2020. It explained that it was unable to rent out parking bays to residents and provided information on the local authority’s blue badge scheme. The resident wrote to the landlord again on the same date and asked if all the disabled bays in the scheme had been allocated. The landlord replied and confirmed that all disabled bays were allocated.
The landlord wrote to the landlord on 30 December 2020 to express her dissatisfaction that another resident, who was a blude badge holder, had been allocated a parking space by the landlord despite it informing her that all disabled parking bays had been allocated.
The landlord replied to the resident on 4 January 2021 and requested more information relating to the resident who had been giving a parking space. There is no evidence of the resident having then responded to this request for further information.
On 1 June 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that she had been approved for a blue badge and requested an on-site parking space as due to her reduced mobility, street parking was too far away. The landlord acknowledged the request on 2 June 2021 and stated that it would respond to the resident within five working days.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 and 11 June 2021 requesting updates. The landlord replied on 14 June 2021 to apologise for the delay and to say that her request had been passed on to its neighbourhood team, who would be in touch with her shortly.
The landlord called the resident on 18 June 2021 and informed her that there were no parking spaces available in the scheme and advised the resident to contact the local authority about getting a parking space on the street.
The resident next wrote to the landlord on 1 July 2021. She explained that she had contacted the local authority but had not heard back. She asked if there was anything else the landlord could do from its side and said that of the 17 disabled parking spaces at the scheme, only three were used by residents who had a disability.
On 5 July 2021 the resident passed on copies of text messages she had received from the local authority stating that it would not be their responsibility to allocate a disabled parking space in an apartment block they did not own and advising that she contact the landlord to. The landlord replied on 6 July 2021 and informed the resident that it would review the matter and provide a response by 13 July 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2021 and asked for an update. The landlord replied on 14 July 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and informed the resident that it had now opened a formal complaint into the matter.
The resident wrote a further email on 14 July 2021 where she explained the outstanding issues she had in how the matter had been dealt with by the landlord:
1. She had been incorrectly informed by the landlord that it did not allocate disabled parking spaces at the scheme.
2. The road outside the scheme was private and the local authority could not allocate her a space on it.
3. The staff member from the landlord’s neighbourhood team she had spoken to was ‘rude’ and ‘intimidating’.
4. Another landlord resident in the building had been treated ‘just as bad’ by the landlord.
5. The resident referred to disabled parking policy for new developments within London, which said that disabled parking spaces should be made available to blue badge holders. In the resident’s view, the spaces had been sold ‘unlawfully’ by the landlord.
The stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 July 2021. The landlord informed her that:
1. The building was part of a wider development managed by a managing agent on behalf of the freeholder. The landlord had the head lease on the building containing the property.
2. The landlord was allocated 12 parking bays by the managing agent. These were sold by the landlord at £25,000 per bay to shared owners on a first-come first-served basis. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had expressed an interest in buying a parking bay at the time of her purchase of the property, though it had no record of the resident having informed it that she had a disability at that time.
3. It had conducted an affordability assessment as part of the property purchase which identified that the resident did not meet the affordability criteria for both the property and a parking bay; as a result, the parking bay had been removed from the sales process.
4. The first record the landlord had of being informed by the resident that she had a disability was her email sent on 17 November 2020 after she was informed that no parking spaces were available.
5. It apologised for not responding to the resident on 13 July 2021 and explained that this was due to the staff member responsible for responding to the resident being held up by another matter which ran over time.
6. It explained that there were four parking bays at the scheme that were allocated to four adapted units as part of their respective tenancy agreements and could not be taken away. The parking bay that the resident had stated had been allocated to a blue badge holder was one of these bays.
7. The landlord said it was satisfied that it had acted appropriately at the time of the sale of the property regarding the resident’s request for a parking bay and that, even had she made them aware of her disability status at that point, then she would still have been required to purchase the parking bay, as those that had been available were intended for sale, rather than rent.
8. The landlord noted the resident’s reference to London based developments, including her view that it should have had a contingency plan for disabled residents. It reiterated that it was not the freeholder of the estate and as such, was not in a position to ‘change the parking arrangements’.
9. It was satisfied that it had responded appropriately to the issue, that the resident had not informed it of a disability during the purchase of the property and that the parking arrangements at the building were the responsibility of the freeholder.
10. It advised the resident to contact the local authority about being allocated a parking space on the road outside the scheme, as the road was not demised to the landlord and therefore it was unable to allocate any parking on it.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2021 and disputed its response. She said that she had written an email to the landlord in May 2020 in which she had described her disability. She further stated that she was not made aware during the purchase that there would be no permit parking and also made the landlord aware that she was now considering taking legal action over the matter.
The landlord replied on 28 July 2021. It informed her that it had spoken with the development team that morning who had confirmed that parking spaces were available in the street and advised the resident to contact the local authority about being provided with a disabled parking space. The landlord also informed the resident that she had the option of requesting an escalation of the complaint to stage two.
The resident replied and informed the landlord that the road outside the building was private and provided a notice from the railway company informing residents not to park on the road and block access to its land.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 July 2021, it stated that it stood by its position as described in its complaint response and would await contact by the resident to request an escalation of the complaint or contact from the resident’s legal team.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 July 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two. As part of the response the resident requested that the landlord explain why she was being treated differently to the other resident with a blue badge who had received a parking space despite not being in an adapted property.
The landlord wrote to resident on 30 July 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide a response by 27 August 2021.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 27 August 2021. The landlord informed her that:
1. It stood by its position set out in the stage one complaint response. It confirmed that at the time the resident purchased the property it was not made aware of her disability and that, having looked further into availability, no spaces were now available. It further added that as the landlord was not the freeholder of the land, that it would not be able to make any alterations to the parking arrangements.
2. It had investigated the matter of the other resident receiving a parking space. It confirmed that it had not allocated a parking space or fob to this resident. It also said that it was investigating the matter further with the managing agent before determining what action it would take.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Schedule 1 of the shared ownership lease describes what is and is not included as part of the premises. Clause 3 of schedule 1 states, in part, that the premises do not include the parking spaces. This is confirmed in the ground floor plan, which does not highlight a parking space as part of the premises.
The landlord does have a car parking policy. However, this is applicable to residents in building’s owned or managed by the landlord. In this case, the landlord does not own the freehold of the building and a managing agent, independent of the landlord, is responsible for managing the parking on the development upon which the building is situated. Clause 1.2.34 of the lease describes the management company who act on behalf of the freeholder.
The landlord was therefore correct when it informed the resident that provisions for parking at the building were not its responsibility and it did not have the power to make changes to the building’s parking policy. Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure by the landlord. It has correctly explained its responsibilities as the holder of the head lease of the building and why it was unable to assign a disabled parking bay to the resident.
In disputing this position, the resident highlighted the situation of another resident of the building who she understood to have received a parking space. The landlord investigated this internally and identified that it had not allocated this resident a parking space and nor had it provided them with an entry fob. It confirmed this as part of the complaint response to the resident and said that it would continue its investigation with the managing agent, whom it accepted might incorrectly have provided the other resident with an entry fob.
It was reasonable for the landlord to have conducted this internal investigation and for it to take the issue up with the managing agent when it identified no service failure on its part. It is not known whether the investigation with the managing agent identified any further relevant information that can be shared with the resident, however, in the interests of transparency and providing reassurance to the resident, it is recommended that it provide any further information it can to her.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that it had been provided with 12 parking bays by the managing agent, which had been made available to the 23 shared ownership leaseholders on a first come first served basis, with a purchase price of £25,000 per bay. It confirmed that the resident had requested such a bay when purchasing the property, but that its affordability assessment had resulted in the parking bay having been removed from the sales process.
The landlord also reviewed the information provided at the time of sale and said that it had no evidence of the resident having informed her of her disability status at the point that she purchased the property. It also confirmed that parking bays she had referred to as disabled bays were not ‘outright disabled units’ and were allocated to specific residents as part of their respective occupancy agreements.
The resident referred to an email she had sent in May 2020 which outlined her health condition. However, this would not have been available to the landlord at the point that it progressed through the sales process, which completed in March 2020 and, in any case, it is not evident that the landlord had the option of providing the resident with a disabled parking space at this time anyway.
It would not be the responsibility of the landlord to determine whether the road outside of the building was owned by the railway company, as stated by the resident, or was a public road maintained by the local authority. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to contact the local authority to receive clarification as to where a disabled parking space could be allocated on the roads outside of the building.

Determination (decision)

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

Reasons

The landlord correctly described its responsibilities as the owner of the head lease for the building, but not of the freehold. It would therefore not have the authority to make any changes to the parking provisions of the scheme to allow a parking bay to be allocated to the resident. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about another resident having been provided with a parking space, identifying no service failure on its part. It also reviewed the availability of parking spaces and confirmed that no such spaces were available at that time, with a recommendation that the resident approach the local authority to see what assistance could be provided.

Recommendation

The landlord to provide the resident with an update regarding its further investigation into the parking bay that she believed to have been allocated to another resident of the building.