Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202219545)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219545

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

15 November 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 regarding the landlord’s;
   1. Decision to reduce the number of disabled parking bays in the basement carpark of the resident’s building.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property since May 2015 under a secure tenancy. The resident is a blue badge holder as he is paralysed on the left side of his body and can only walk unaided for a short distance. The landlord is aware of this vulnerability.
3. In 2021 the landlord was approached by residents advising that there were too many disabled bays within the underground carpark and not enough general bays. The landlord temporarily reduced the number of disabled bays from nine to four.
4. In November 2021 the landlord invited all residents to submit proof of their disabled blue badge to allow it to make an informed decision on the number of disabled bays required. Five residents provided proof, though two of these communications related to the same property. The landlord then made the decision to permanently reduce the disabled spaces to five bays. This was communicated to all residents by way of letter.
5. The resident approached the landlord on 19 July 2022 and raised a formal complaint regarding the disabled parking bays. He advised that the bays had been reduced without consultation and there were many abandoned cars within the carpark. He also advised that due to his disability he was unable to park on surrounding streets so had received numerous fines when he had parked at the front of the building.
6. The landlord responded to the stage one complaint on 9 August 2022. It confirmed that a consultation had taken place and letters were sent to all residents advising them of the changes. The landlord went on to list surrounding streets that residents could park on if bays were unavailable. It advised that the carpark is managed by a third party so it had approached them regarding the abandoned cars and asked for increased patrols of the carpark. It stated that it could not pay the resident’s parking fines, offered to refer him to an internal support team and signposted him to Citizens Advice for assistance with appealing the fines. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the time and trouble the resident had experienced in bringing the matter to its attention.
7. On 5 September 2022 the resident requested the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two. He stated that while he accepted all procedures had been followed he did not believe the landlord had considered the impact the reduction in disabled bays had on residents. He advised that when he signed his tenancy agreement he was told there would be ample parking facilities. He also stated that the landlord’s direction to park on nearby streets showed a lack of understanding of his disability.
8. The landlord provided its stage two response on 14 October 2022. It fully explained the consultation process that had taken place and the results which informed its decision. It advised that after further consultation it would increase the number of disabled bays to seven. It apologised for its suggestion to park in surrounding areas and advised that it had not meant to cause offense. It acknowledged its complaint handling delays and apologised for any distress and inconvenience this had caused the resident, offering £50 compensation.
9. The landlord conducted a further review in June 2023 where it offered a further £100 for time and trouble and £150 for complaints handling.
10. The resident is dissatisfied with the outcome and to resolve the matter would like the number of disabled parking spaces to be increased and the landlord to support him in paying his outstanding parking fines.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to reduce the number of disabled parking bays in the basement carpark of the resident’s building

11. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 19 July 2022 regarding the disabled parking bays. He advised that the bays had been reduced without consultation and there were many abandoned cars within the carpark. He also advised that due to his disability he was unable to park on surrounding streets so had received numerous fines when he had parked at the front of the building.
12. In 2021 the landlord was advised of a discrepancy in the number of disabled spaces required and being used in the underground carpark. In November of that year, the landlord invited all residents to submit proof of their disabled blue badge to allow it to make an informed decision on the number of disabled bays required. Five residents provided proof, though two of these communications related to the same property. The landlord then made the decision to permanently reduce the disabled spaces to five bays. This was communicated to all residents by way of letter.
13. The resident’s tenancy agreement states “You have the right to be consulted and share your views on how we manage your home”. The landlord met this obligation by properly consulting with residents regarding the number of blue badge holders using the carpark. It also clearly communicated the outcome of this consultation with residents and gave them a way to provide feedback. This was appropriate.
14. In its stage two response the landlord went on to advise that it had reassessed the number of disabled parking bays and was increasing them from five to seven. The reassessment of the number of parking bays after the resident’s observations was the appropriate action to take. It shows that the landlord took the complaint seriously and made active changes to increase the number of accessible spaces available.
15. This service expects landlords to fully investigate any allegations made to it in a complaint. It further expects the landlord to offer assistance and provide appropriate signposting to any residents who express difficulty managing and maintaining their tenancy.
16. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that the carpark was managed by a third-party management company who were responsible for managing the misuse of disabled parking bays and abandoned cars. It stated that it had approached said company and asked for increased patrols of the carpark so parking charge notices could be issued for misuse. This was the appropriate response to the resident’s complaint of the disabled bays being misused.
17. The parking management company also confirmed to the landlord that it was aware of one possibly abandoned car within the carpark and it had started the legal process of having this removed. It advised that this could be a lengthy process. The landlord passed this information on to the resident in its stage one complaint, advising that the removal of abandoned cars must follow a process and this can take time. Again this was the appropriate response to the resident’s complaint of abandoned cars being parked within the carpark.
18. In its stage one response the landlord listed a number of surrounding streets and suggested the resident park on these if bays were unavailable within the carpark. In the resident’s stage two escalation request he advised that this suggestion showed a lack of understanding as his disability would not allow him to walk from that area. In its stage two response the landlord apologised for any offence it may have caused by this suggestion. Given that the landlord is aware of the resident’s disability this was an insensitive suggestion, and so apologising was the appropriate action to take.
19. In both its stage one and stage two response the landlord stated it could not pay the resident’s parking fines as this was a civil matter between the resident and the local authority/enforcement agency. It acknowledged and empathised with the resident’s financial difficulties caused by the parking fines and offered to refer him to an internal support team. It also signposted him to Citizens Advice for assistance with appealing the fines and a third-party organisation that could offer support with financial difficulties.  This signposting and offer to refer to an internal support team was both an appropriate and practical solution.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will reimburse residents for any quantifiable loss they incur as a result of its failings. It therefore was not unreasonable that the resident sought to pursue the landlord for reimbursement.
21. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, while the resident having to park outside of the building carpark is inconvenient, it was the resident’s decision to park in a restricted zone that resulted in fines. It would subsequently be unfair for the Ombudsman to require the landlord to reimburse this cost, given that it was not the cause of it. This service appreciates the reasoning provided by the resident for parking in a restricted zone. Nevertheless, as the owner of the car, it is the resident’s responsibility to appropriately consider all parking signs/restrictions before parking. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for the cost of the fines was therefore reasonable.
22. The landlord offered £50 at stage one for the time and trouble the resident had taken to bring the matter to its attention. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation of between £50 and £350, depending on the severity of its failure, can be awarded for time and trouble.
23. In its later review in June 2023, the landlord offered a further £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble.
24. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. It appears to this service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. The landlord should ensure that a proper review is undertaken prior to the resident exhausting the internal process.
25. With this said, this service is satisfied that the redress offered was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. As such, a finding of reasonable redress will be made.
26. However, the landlord’s letters to the residents dated 1 December 2021 and 24 January 2022 explained that residents should display their parking permit when parked in a general bay. In disabled bays, the landlord stated that residents must display their parking permit and a blue badge. The resident’s photographs from the car park indicate that residents are either unaware of these rules or are not following them. The lack of disabled parking spaces is also clearly having a detrimental impact on the resident. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to take additional steps to try to improve resident awareness and behaviour.
27. It is therefore recommended that the landlord writes to all residents to remind them of the parking restrictions and the expectation with regard to displaying permits and their blue badge, where applicable. The letter should also clearly explain how important the use of blue badge holder bays are to disabled residents and outline the potential enforcement action of misuse of the disabled bays.
28. The landlord has confirmed that there are now seven disabled bays in the car park. As the landlord is writing to all residents, it is recommended that its letter should also inform residents that if they are a blue badge holder and have not already contacted the landlord about this, they should do so. This will allow the landlord to give further consideration to whether there are enough disabled parking spaces for all residents that require them.
29. Although the landlord has delegated management of the car park to a third party, in order for it to properly understand the issues in the car park that are affecting residents, it would be appropriate for it to visit the car park and see for itself. It is therefore recommended that the landlord inspects the car park next time its housing officer visits the site. During its visit it should also consider the option of leaving warning notices on cars that are not following parking restrictions.
30. Government guidance on making transport accessible for passengers and pedestrians is available to read online. This confirms that off-street disabled parking should be clearly marked as being reserved for blue badge holders using both road markings and vertical signs. The photographs the resident has provided do not show that disabled parking spaces are accompanied by a vertical sign. It is therefore recommended that the landlord completes a review of the disabled bays in the car park to ensure that spaces reserved for blue badge holders are clearly designated with both road markings and a vertical sign. This should make sure that residents and parking staff are clear on which spaces are for the sole use of blue badge holders.

The landlord’s complaints handling

31. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage one the complaint will be responded to within 10 working days and at stage two within 20 working days, with any delays communicated to the resident.
32. The resident contacted the landlord with the initial complaint on 19 July 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 9 August 2022, 15 working days after the initial expression of dissatisfaction. The resident requested escalation to stage two on 5 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage two response on 14 October 2022, 28 working days after the escalation request.
33. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days and a stage two complaint within 20 working days. Where there are any delays they must be communicated and not exceed an additional ten working days.
34. This service has seen no evidence to suggest the resident was made aware of any delay in the stage one or stage two response. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code.
35. The landlord offered £50 at stage two for its complaints handling failure. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation of up to £150, depending on the severity of its failure, can be awarded for poor complaints handling.
36. In its later review in June 2023, the landlord offered a further £150 in recognition of its complaints handling failures at stages one and two.
37. As above, this Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. It appears to this service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation.
38. With that said, this service is satisfied that the redress offered was proportionate and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, as such, a finding of reasonable redress will be made.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about;
    1. The landlord’s decision to reduce the number of disabled parking bays in the basement carpark of the resident’s building.
    2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

40. The landlord is recommended to write to all residents to:
    1. Remind them of the parking restrictions and the expectation with regard to displaying permits and their blue badge (where applicable).
    2. Explain how important the use of blue badge holder bays are to disabled residents
    3. Outline the potential enforcement action of misuse of the disabled bays.
    4. Inform them that if they are a blue badge holder and have not already contacted the landlord about this, they should do so, to allow the landlord to consider if there are enough disabled parking spaces for all residents that require them.
41. The landlord is recommended to arrange for its housing officer to inspect the car park next time they visit the site and consider the option of leaving warning notices on vehicles that are not following the parking restrictions.
42. The landlord is recommended to complete a review of the disabled bays in the car park to ensure that spaces reserved for blue badge holders are clearly designated with both road markings and a vertical sign.