The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202011542)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011542

Platform Housing Group Limited

3 June 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. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s handling of charges associated with the car park.
    2. The landlord’s decision to withhold information from the resident’s subject access request.
    3. The level of rent charged to the resident.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s decision to withhold information from the resident’s subject access request

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. On 25 May 2021 the resident passed on correspondence between himself and the landlord relating to the landlord’s decision to withhold some information from his subject access request.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about landlords’ responses to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information Acts. Matters relating to requests for information under the Data Protection and Freedom of Information acts fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the resident contact the ICO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

The level of rent charged to the resident

  1. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent”.
  2. In his initial complaint to the landlord on 12 November 2020 and in his request to escalate the complaint sent on 4 December 2020, the resident has stated the level of rent charged by the landlord is too high for his type of property.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) and the complainant would be advised to contact the FTT in relation to how to proceed with a case.

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint process the resident has described discussions he had with landlord staff members and the advice that was given relating to parking when he started the tenancy in 2017. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”. This also means that the appropriate evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in November 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. The landlord operates a three-stage complaints policy. If the issue is thought to be able to be dealt with by the relevant department, a quick resolution response will be sent to the complainant within three working days.
  3. If the quick resolution is unsuccessful, a formal response will be sent to the complainant within ten working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, they can request an escalation to the next stage and a final review of the complaint will be sent within 20 working days. This is the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

  1. On 11 February 2020 the landlord wrote a letter to its residents informing them that it was undertaking a review of its car parking arrangements.  It wrote again on 10 September 2020 an informed its residents that, due to unauthorised parking, it was making changes to the car park, including allocating new fobs to residents who pay for parking,
  2. On 12 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint as he no longer had access to his parking space. He noted that he paid a monthly charge, labelled car park charge, for access and had a fob.
  3. The resident also informed the landlord that he was disabled and that there was no alternative parking available within walking distance of the property.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 November 2020 and informed him that it had been passed on to the relevant department who would send a response within three working days, under its quick resolution process.
  5. The landlord sent its response to the resident on 16 November 2020. It informed him that due to people abusing the car parking facilities, the fobs were changed as this was not fair to residents who paid to access the car park.
  6. The landlord explained that access to a parking space was an additional charge and that it had no record of a parking space being allocated to the resident. It further noted that the resident appeared to have been issued with a fob in error when he moved in. The landlord apologised for this confusion and said, as it was its error, it would not charge the resident for parking during that period.
  7. The landlord then addressed the service charge and noted that “monthly car parking charges” related to the 48p per month charge that all residents pay for the upkeep of the car park. It accepted that this name had caused confusion and apologised to the resident for the misunderstanding. It noted that it had changed the name of the charge in April 2020 to “monthly car/barrier maintenance charge”.
  8. The landlord also included the letters sent on 11 February 2020 and 10 September 2020 to show that it had given prior notice that it was making changes to car parking. The landlord concluded the response by enquiring if the resident wished to rent a parking space and that, although there were limited spaces available, it agreed to give him priority.
  9. On 26 November 2020 the resident called the landlord and expressed his dissatisfaction with the quick resolution response. The landlord’s records of the phone call state that the resident had informed it that he had paid a fee for three years to allow him to park and had received a fob. The resident also explained that he would be unable to afford to pay £45 per month to rent a parking space. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord allowed him to park in the car park as he had for the previous three years, or that it re‑house him in a property with suitable parking space and pay compensation.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 November 2020. It confirmed that it had progressed his complaint to its formal complaint process and that it aimed to provide a response within 15 working days.
  11. The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint on 30 November 2020 and then sent a stage one complaint response on 4 December 2020. It informed the resident that:
    1. During their telephone conversation, the resident stated that at the start of the tenancy he was told a parking space was available for him and he was provided with a fob.
    2. As per its complaint policy, it would only investigate issues raised within the last 12 months and that it had no record of a licence agreement, which would have been issued to the resident at the time, to use a parking space.
    3. It apologised for providing a fob to the resident in error and it confirmed that it would not look to recover parking charges. It also stated that it would not deactivate the fob until its complaint process had ended and that it would continue to allow the resident to park free of charge until then.
    4. In answer to a query from the resident relating to parking policy at previous landlord properties he had lived in, the landlord explained that its sites have different arrangements based on local factors. It explained that his current site had insufficient parking spaces for the number of properties and there had therefore always been an additional charge for parking in place.
  12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 December 2020 and requested an escalation of the complaint on the grounds that he was originally told that his tenancy included parking. The resident also asked the landlord for help with finding suitable alternative accommodation if it was not possible to reach a resolution to his complaint.
  13. The landlord replied on 10 December 2020. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and that a response would be provided within 20 working days.
  14. The landlord called the resident on 8 January 2021 to discuss his outstanding issues and then sent a stage two complaint response on 12 January 2021.
  15. The landlord again apologised for mistakenly issuing the resident with a fob and for the confusion that this, and the wording of the service charge, had caused. The landlord stated that although it would not seek to recover charges for prior parking by the resident, going forward he would need to pay for a licence agreement as it would not be fair on other residents who are charged for parking.
  16. The landlord stated that it would arrange an appointment at its neighbourhood office to discuss rehousing options if the resident wished.
  17. The landlord then informed the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his complaint to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service has been provided with a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement, signed by the resident on 27 November 2017.
  2. The description of premises on the opening page of the tenancy agreement describes only the property and does not make any mention of a parking space.
  3. Section 2(17) of the tenancy agreement addresses the tenant’s obligations as they relate to roadways and parking. This describes what vehicles the landlord will or will not allow a tenant to park, what condition it expects the vehicles to be in, and in what locations a parked vehicle would be considered to be an obstruction. However, this section does not make any provisions that a tenant will be allocated a parking space.
  4. Schedule 1 of the tenancy agreement describes the service charge at the time the tenancy was signed. This lists a £1.41 charge for “monthly car park charges”. Therefore, as the resident had been issued with a fob to access the car park, it was not unreasonable for him to believe that he had been issued a car parking space for which he was paying a monthly fee.
  5. Due to the length of time passed, it was not possible to determine the circumstances as to how the fob was given to the resident. The landlord apologised for the confusion, reworded the charge for upkeep of the car park, and informed the resident that it would not look to charge him for the time he had parked with the fob.
  6. When a resident of the site is allocated a parking space, a car park licence agreement is completed. This provides the name and address of the licensee requesting a parking space, the details of the vehicle they wish to park, the licensees’ obligations relating to payment and use of the space; and the landlord’s obligations relating to upkeep of the car park and any changes in rent.
  7. The car park license agreement is then signed and dated by both the licensee and the landlord. No evidence has been provided that a car park license agreement was signed by the resident.
  8. The landlord acted appropriately by giving residents several months’ notice before it made changes to its car parking arrangements. When a complaint was raised by the resident, the landlord provided three responses at each stage of its process where it clearly described its parking policy and how it allocates spaces.
  9. It recognised the confusion that the wording of its service charge and the issuing of the fob had caused. Its response to apologise, reword the service charge element, not to charge the resident for parking during the period, and to give the resident priority should he wish to apply for a space was reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. As no evidence is available which shows a parking space had been allocated to the resident, it is appropriate for the landlord to expect the resident to apply and pay for a parking space as it would any other resident of the site.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of charges associated with the car park.