Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Islington Council (202107863)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107863

Islington Council

17 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s reports of illegal parking on his estate;
    2. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant whose tenancy began on 15 November 1976. The landlord is a local authority and has described the property as a two-bedroom fourth floor flat.
  2. The resident’s property is within a mid-rise block on an estate that contains several other blocks, including one directly behind the resident’s block. There is a road and some estate greenspace between the resident’s block and the neighbouring block.
  3. The landlord’s website sets out that residents get priority for estate parking applications.
  4. The landlord had an estates parking factsheet that showed that ‘estate parking restrictions are displayed on warning signs on estate entrances’ and explained ‘the charges payable if a vehicle is parked illegally or without authorisation’. It also provided residents with contact details as to how they could report unauthorised or illegally parked vehicles to its estate parking control contractors.
  5. The landlord’s website has a section about estate traffic management orders (TMOs) that shows that it consulted with residents during 2019 and most residents supported a move to an ‘allocated parking system of numbered bays’ and the introduction of TMOs. It notes that it expects to take two years (between April 2021 and March 2023) to introduce TMOs on all of its estates and that this would allow Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) to patrol estates as well as public roads.
  6. The landlord has a corporate complaints policy that sets out a formal two-stage complaints procedure where it is obliged to respond in 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two) respectively. It shows that it will combine multi-issue complaints into a single response.
  7. At the time of this complaint, the landlord also had an intermediary stage where it would conduct a stage one review before escalating the complaint to the final ‘chief executive’ stage of its complaints process.
  8. The landlord has ‘compensation guidance’ policy that shows that will decide whether compensation is appropriate by assessing if there was fault on its part and how this impacted the resident. It adds that it will potentially award £25 compensation for parking service failings and £25 each month for delay.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 June 2020, advising that cars had been parking illegally for years in an area between his block and a neighbouring block. He added that this was obstructing gates to ‘greens which are required for fire brigade access’.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 8 September 2020. He said he had received a response to his June 2020 illegal parking report and that this had acknowledged his concerns and said that enforcement would take place but the problem remained worse than ever. He reiterated that cars were ‘obstructing the gates to the greens, access to which is required by the Fire Brigade’.
  3. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 14 October 2020. It apologised for the response delay and set out that:
    1. its estate parking enforcement patrol contractors were ‘monitoring patrol and enforcement levels’ and had issued 108 Parking Control Notices (PCNs) in the previous 12 months
    2. it had discussed the matter with its property services contractors to ensure their vehicles were parking considerately
    3. it was working with colleagues in the traffic and parking service to introduce TMOs on its estates to allow patrols by CEOs, issuing of PCNs and removal of vehicles
    4. the courtyard area outside the resident’s block was one of 10 pilot sites that had been assessed by a traffic engineer and would be placed under the new system, subject to resident consultation on a parking design plan it had drawn up
    5. there had been discussion with the resident’s association about the potential for making the courtyard area traffic-free except for emergency and public service vehicles.
  4. The resident sent a complaint escalation request on 15 October 2020 – he said he was still dissatisfied as the landlord was dealing with the issue in a routine manner and not addressing the urgency of illegally parked vehicles ‘obstructing access to the gates onto the greens which may be required by the fire brigade’.
  5. The landlord has advised this Service that 13 letters were issued to registered keepers of 11 vehicles that continued to be regularly parked in the estate courtyard between November 2020 and March 2021. It noted that three letters were sent to residents of the estate and the rest to people who did not live on the estate. The letter advised the registered keepers that their vehicle was not authorised to park on the estate and that it was blocking access; it made a formal request that the keepers stop parking on the estate and said it would consider legal options if the behaviour continued.
  6. The landlord issued a further complaint response on 31 December 2020. It apologised for the delay in the response and concluded that:
    1. the stage one complaint response had addressed all the points raised in the resident’s complaint
    2. it did not dispute that the blocking of emergency services vehicles was a serious matter but said it was doing everything in its power to resolve the issue and was ‘not legally allowed to remove vehicles from the estate at this time’ and was restricted to the actions it was ‘permitted to take within the confines of the law’
    3. it had taken actions such as flagging the estate with its enforcement contractors, beginning a project to introduce a TMO, increasing the number of PCNs issued, carrying out vehicle ownership checks with the DVLA, discussing the issue with its own maintenance contractors and liaising with the resident’s association about the possibility of restricting vehicles from the courtyard area
    4. a Zoom meeting the previous month had led to its estate services team being asked to erect ‘keep clear’ signage on the gates in question
    5. the TMO statutory consultation was under way and it hoped to introduce the scheme from January 2021 when it would be able to install double yellow lines, change the signage and commence CEO patrols
    6. the complaint was partly upheld given the matter had been ‘unresolved for some time’ albeit it had done everything in its remit to tackle the problem.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 January 2021. He provided a photograph and raised a concern that no landlord response had addressed the specific hazard he had highlighted about vehicles blocking emergency services access. He queried what part of his complaint had been upheld and contrasted the presence of traffic wardens on nearby streets with the lack of enforcement on the estate.
  8. The resident submitted a further complaint on 22 February 2021 on the grounds that:
    1. missed recycling collections had been attributed to obstruction by illegally parked vehicles that had been a problem for over 40 years
    2. he originally raised the problem in June 2020 and the situation remained the same
    3. he had been told to contact other departments in the local authority which demonstrated a lack of co-ordination
    4. he was not convinced by promises of plans to resolve the illegal parking issue.
  9. The landlord issued a response at the final ‘chief executive’ stage of its complaints process on 22 February 2021. It concluded that:
    1. £25 compensation and an apology were offered for the delay in responding to the complaint
    2. it was working on a resolution but had to act within the confines of the law and the December 2020 complaint review partly upheld the complaint because it recognised the inconvenience and frustration caused
    3. 17 parking enforcement notices were issued in December 2020 although CEO patrols had not commenced yet because the TMO had been delayed by required legal and signage checks
    4. it expected to implement the TMO from April 2021 and parking enforcement patrols would continue
    5. unknown persons had removed signs that the estate services team had placed on estate gates.
  10. The resident initially approached the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in February 2021 (as the landlord’s final response signposted); he subsequently escalated the complaint to this Service in June 2021 when the LGSCO confirmed the estate parking issue was a housing-related matter.
  11. The landlord issued a leaflet to residents on the estate in advance of a consultation from 5 March 2021 on its plans to introduce a TMO to ‘keep access clear for residents and service vehicles, such as bin collections, ambulances and fire engines’.
  12. The landlord sent a letter to residents on 10 June 2021 – it thanked them for consultation feedback and confirmed it intended to proceed with the TMO. It advised that new signs and line markings would be installed between 21-23 June 2021 and that the TMO would then be enforced by CEOs who could issue PCNs.
  13. The landlord has advised this Service that the TMO commenced from 8 July 2021 and that the courtyard was since patrolled by CEOs and this enabled ‘the removal of vehicles that cause an obstruction or that continue to park illegally after receiving PCNs’.
  14. The landlord replied to the resident on 19 July 2021 to answer concerns raised by him about it signposting him to the incorrect Ombudsman. It apologised for the referral error but said it had been made in good faith given the complaint partially related to waste management issues.

Assessment and findings

Parking

  1. The resident has advised this Service that he experienced problems with illegal parking on his estate over a few decades. For the purposes of this investigation, it is noted that he began to report his specific concerns to the landlord from 30 June 2020.
  2. The landlord has advised this Service that records of illegal parking reports made to its estate parking enforcement contractor were not retained for more than two months but it is not disputed that residents had concerns about illegal parking, including unauthorised overnight parking (including by local residents who did not live on the estate), daytime parking by marked local authority vehicles and a vehicle that was regularly parked in the same position overnight, blocking access to a bin and recycling area.
  3. In response to these concerns, the landlord completed the following actions over the subsequent six months:
    1. reviewed its enforcement levels, noting it had issued 108 PCNs in the 12 months up to October 2020, and issued 17 PCNs in a single month in December 2020
    2. highlighted the concerns of residents with its enforcement contractors
    3. identified problematic vehicles and liaised with the DVLA so it could issue multiple letters to registered keepers from November 2020, requiring them not to park on the estate and drawing their attention to the need for clear access
    4. liaised with colleagues to reduce the likelihood of its own vehicles parking inappropriately on the estate
    5. began arrangements to get new signage erected at the gates that the resident had identified.

These actions on the part of the landlord directly addressed the cause of the parking problems that it had identified and were reasonable attempts to reduce the likelihood of illegal parking.

  1. The landlord had already identified the option of introducing TMOs on its estates at least as early as 2019 and informed the resident in October 2020 that this would provide a long-term solution to the parking issues in his location. The landlord used its discretion to make the resident’s estate one of its pilot sites – this was a reasonable approach and demonstrated that it had identified the importance of remedying the access issues the resident had highlighted.
  2. The landlord told the resident in December 2020 that it intended to introduce the TMO from January 2021. There was a delay as the TMO signage and road markings were not installed until June 2021. Although this delay would inevitably have been a source of frustration for the resident, the landlord offered an update to him in February 2021, explaining that legal and signage checks meant that the TMO was not ready, and it conducted the resident consultation in March 2021. Although the landlord did not therefore meet the original timescale it set out for the TMO, it did update the resident during the intervening period and continued to write to registered keepers of problem vehicles in the meantime. This was a reasonable approach on the part of the landlord to communicate with the resident and continue taking enforcement action pending the introduction of the TMO.
  3. In summary, the landlord acted reasonably in prioritising the introduction of a TMO at the resident’s estate given concerns about illegal parking blocking emergency access and the requirement it identified for CEO enforcement. In the meantime, it took appropriate steps to identify problem vehicles and take alternative enforcement measures.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident initially submitted a complaint to the landlord on 8 September 2020, highlighting the potential obstacle for emergency vehicles caused by illegal parking. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it should have responded to this complaint within 10 working days but it did not do so until 14 October 2020. This meant that the was an inappropriate delay of around three weeks – although the landlord apologised, it did not offer any explanation or further redress for this delay.
  2. The resident made a complaint escalation request to the landlord on 15 October 2020. At this time, the landlord was conducting reviews prior to formally escalating complaints to the final ‘chief executive’ stage of its complaints process. Although it was therefore reasonable that it conducted such a review in this instance, it failed to respond until 31 December 2020 – this was inappropriate and constituted a delay of around two months.
  3. The resident again asked for the complaint to be escalated on 1 January 2021. The landlord’s complaints process sets out that it should have responded within 20 working days at the final stage of its complaints process but it did not do so until 22 February 2021. This was again a delay of a few weeks and meant that there were inappropriate delays at each stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
  4. The content of the landlord’s responses at each stage of the complaints process provided the resident with appropriate updates on the steps it was taking to address illegal parking and introduce a TMO to the estate. However, the resident’s specific concern whenever he submitted a complaint was the possibility of fire engines being obstructed and there is no evidence that the landlord considered this issue beyond acknowledging his point and confirming its general attempts to resolve illegal parking – this was unreasonable and meant that the landlord failed to give the resident a direct answer, or any reassurance, on the primary focus of his complaint.
  5. During the course of his complaint about illegal parking, the resident also raised the issue of failures to collect refuse and recycling. These issues were partially linked as the parking issue was causing obstacles to the landlord’s refuse collection service that it delivered in its capacity as a local authority. Although it was appropriate for the landlord to bring the issues together into a single complaint investigation, it failed to signpost the resident correctly at the end of its complaints process as it told him to escalate his concerns to the LGSCO instead of explaining that this Service was the appropriate recourse for any landlord functions.
  6. When the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint at the final stage of its complaints process, it did award £25 compensation and again apologise for its complaint handling delays. However, given there were delays at each stage of the complaints process for a total of more than three months and the landlord also failed to respond directly to his fire service concern and signposted him incorrectly, this level of compensation was insufficient.
  7. In summary, the landlord delayed in offering responses at each stage of its complaints process, failed to directly address the resident’s health and safety concern and did not signpost him accurately. Its apologies and £25 compensation award did not offer sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of illegal parking on his estate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted reasonably during June 2020-June 2021 in carrying out enforcement, addressing problem vehicles, reducing the chances of its own vehicles causing an obstruction and erecting temporary signage pending the introduction of a TMO scheme on the resident’s estate.
  2. The landlord failed to offer sufficient redress for the service failures identified in its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by its complaint handling service failures (in addition to the £25 it awarded at the final stage of its complaints process).

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure that its complaint handling staff are aware of the need to signpost residents to this Service for any complaints relating to its landlord functions.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.