Sovereign Network Homes (202208966)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208966

Network Homes Limited

27 July 2023

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 handling of the resident’s request to be allocated a disabled parking space.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat. There is a managing agent in place to manage the carpark. The resident stated she required use of a disabled parking space due to her health conditions, and as she is a carer for her son who is a wheelchair user.
3. In late 2020 the resident asked the landlord for a parking fob. The landlord said it was unable to give her one as the 3 available parking spaces were allocated to 4 disability adapted flats. It said it was only able to provide parking fobs to those specific flats. Around the same time the resident was given a parking fob by the managing agent (or building developer, it is not wholly clear from the records).
4. In 2022 the parking system was changed, requiring tenants with parking spaces to obtain a permit from the landlord. The resident made her request to the landlord on 22 April 2022. She said she had been using a space which the developer had allocated to her in October 2020, and the managing agent had provided her with a fob. The landlord apologised for the confusion but reiterated its 2020 response that her flat did not qualify for a parking space, so it was unable to provide her with a permit.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 18 May 2022, as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. She had been using a designated space since 2020, following confirmation from the managing agent that she was able to. In her complaint escalation, she raised concerns that other residents should not have access to the disabled parking spaces as they did not have a disabled badge.
6. In the landlord’s stage one response, it said that the 3 parking spaces had already been allocated and the parking space the resident was using was designated for commercial unit parking. It acknowledged that it had given information about the resident’s tenancy to the managing agent in 2020 in relation to a parking space but had not been aware the resident had been allocated a space. It apologised for the misunderstanding.
7. In its stage two response, the landlord said it was not responsible for any communication the resident had with the managing agent, so it was unable to uphold the previous agreement to use a parking space, but it would investigate to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It said that the resident having a disabled badge did not impact the spaces available and she had not included a need for a disabled parking space in her transfer application. It said that if she continued to park in the bay she had previously been using, she might be fined. It also said that it was unable to discuss with her her concerns that residents with allocated disabled spaces were not wheelchair users.
8. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to not provide her with a parking permit. She thought the landlord had discriminated against her regarding her disability, as the closest carpark was 500 metres away, which she would have difficulties using due to her health conditions. She also raised concerns that the landlord had offered permits to other residents despite not being disabled badge holders.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she explained that she felt the landlord had discriminated against her because of her disabilities. This service cannot formally determine whether discrimination has taken place, as that is a legal allegation which is better suited to a court to decide. Should the resident wish to seek further advice with regards to this specific issue, she may wish to contact Citizens Advice or the Equalities Support and Advisory Service. Nonetheless, this investigation will look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be allocated a disabled parking space

10. The tenancy agreement does not say that the resident has access to a parking space, so the landlord is not contractually obliged to provide one. The tenancy agreement states that the resident must comply with any parking schemes in place.
11. In her complaint, the resident said she was informed she would be given a disabled parking space when she moved into the property. No evidence of this was provided to the landlord or seen in this investigation. The landlord stated that the resident did not include a need for a disabled parking space as part of her housing transfer application. As a result, there is no evidence that the landlord set an expectation that the resident was entitled to a disabled parking space at the beginning of the tenancy.
12. The landlord has access to 3 parking spaces, which are allocated to the 4 disability adapted flats. This service has not seen evidence of any further criteria relating to the allocation of the parking spaces, such as an application process. As the resident does not live in one of the adapted flats, and the landlord does not have access to additional disabled parking spaces, it was not able to provide her with a parking space.
13. The resident requested a parking permit on 22 April 2022 due to the changing parking regulations. The landlord advised her that as it had already allocated the available disabled parking spaces, it was unable to fulfil her request. Due to the restrictions regarding the number of available spaces, the landlord’s decision was reasonable. It was also reasonable that it provided clear reasons for its decisions, so it managed the resident’s expectations regarding the limitations on the actions it could take.
14. The resident informed the landlord that she had been using a parking space since late 2020, following permission from the developer and the managing agent. The landlord said that the managing agent had incorrectly provided her with a fob, and it apologised for the confusion caused. It explained that the space the resident had been allocated was designated for commercial unit parking. The landlord would therefore not have authority to permit the resident to use the space, as it did not own it.
15. The landlord confirmed to the managing agent that the resident was its tenant on 10 December 2020. There is no evidence that the managing agent informed the landlord which parking space it was allocating her, so it did not have an opportunity to identify the error at an earlier date. It was appropriate that when the landlord recognised the resident was incorrectly allocated a space, it said it would investigate to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It is acknowledged that the mistake clearly caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she no longer had access to a parking space. However, the landlord would not be able to authorise her to continue using the space based on the error.
16. The resident raised concerns that other residents should not have been provided with permits, as she said they were not disabled badge holders. It was appropriate that the landlord explained it was unable to share details of other residents due to data privacy, as details of any disabilities is considered personal data. Regardless, as the disabled spaces were allocated to 4 designated flats, rather than based on individual criteria, the personal details of other residents would not impact the allocation of the spaces.
17. Overall, the evidence seen in this investigation shows that the only parking spaces are allocated to four specific flats. The resident does not live in one of those flats, so does not have access to an allocated parking space. The landlord’s explanation of that reflected the facts and was reasonable. Due to an apparent error in 2020 the resident had the use of a parking space until 2022. That error was to the resident’s benefit for that period but does not change the fact that the parking space she was using was not one the landlord could provide permission to use.
18. This situation has clearly and understandably caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, particularly in light of her family’s need for such a space. There may be options available which have not been considered, and which the landlord could potentially assist with. A recommendation to reflect this has been made below.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s request to be allocated a disabled parking space.

Recommendations

20. Given the unusual circumstances of this complaint, the landlord is urged to consider whether there are other options it could help with which might resolve the problem (for example, facilitating discussions with the owner of the commercial parking space the resident was using, who does not appear to have been affected by her use of it).