Platform Housing Group Limited (202208814)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208814

Platform Housing Group Limited

7 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the location of her parking space and a garage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident moved into the property on 30 November 2012. The property has one allocated parking space, which is located in front of her neighbour’s property. The resident’s property faces a standalone garage.
  3. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 4 May 2022. She contended that her parking space was incorrectly situated and that it was inappropriate for the garage to be located directly in front of her property. She advised that parking her car in front of her neighbour’s property was causing her distress as she was “not on good terms” with her neighbour. As a resolution, she wanted to use the garage for parking.
  4. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 23 May 2022, which included the following:
    1. It had inspected the area on 12 May 2022, and found no issues with the location of the parking space or garage.
    2. It advised that it had consulted the local authority’s plans for the estate, which showed that her parking space was in the correct location and that the estate had been built in accordance with the plans.
    3. It confirmed that it owned the garage, which its repairs team used for storage.
    4. It did not uphold the complaint as the parking space and garage were correctly located and allocated.
    5. It suggested that the resident contact her housing officer to seek to resolve the dispute she had with her neighbour.
  5. The landlord continued to correspond with the resident, during which it provided her with the estate plans.
  6. In response to her continued dissatisfaction with its response, the landlord asked the resident on 8 June 2022, for her desired resolution to enable it to escalate the complaint. There was no record of her responding to this.
  7. After receiving contact from the resident on 31 July 2022, this service requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. It issued its final stage response to her on 5 September 2022, which included the following:
    1. It confirmed that there was no scope for alteration of the garage or the resident’s parking space.
    2. It suggested that she use a visitor car parking space if she did not wish to park in front of her neighbour’s property.
    3. It confirmed that it had referred her neighbour dispute to her housing officer.
    4. It confirmed that its housing officer had since spoken to the resident to discuss her options for both rehousing and resolving the neighbour dispute.
  8. The resident informed this service on 5 September 2022, that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said that the garage blocked the view of her house, and she was concerned that if she had an accident in front of her property, she could not be seen. The resident said that the location of the garage and parking space had deterred potential mutual exchangers from taking her property.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement is silent on the matter of the parking space; however, it is not disputed that the resident has access to a parking space located in front of her neighbour’s property.
  2. This service has been provided with the plans for the estate, and it is not disputed that the plans note the location of the resident’s allocated parking space and the garage. An assessment of whether these plans comply with all relevant rules and regulations is beyond the scope of this investigation and beyond the jurisdiction of this service. Should the resident have any concerns of this nature, she should seek independent legal advice.
  3. It would not be possible for the Ombudsman to compel the landlord to provide the resident’s desired outcome, that of removing the garage, repurposing it for the resident’s use, or relocating her parking space. This investigation will, however, consider whether the landlord’s response and communication was reasonable and in line with its obligations and good practice.
  4. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately consulted the local authority’s plans to double check the parking spaces and garage were correctly located. It also accurately informed the resident that the garage and parking space were situated correctly according to the plans. There was no evidence of a failure in its communication about this.
  5. Given that, as part of her complaint, the resident noted issues with her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to assist in a resolution. It acted reasonably in contacting the resident to open an investigation into the issues, and the Ombudsman understands that this is ongoing. It was also reasonable for it to discuss options for rehousing if the resident considered the property no longer suitable for her. This demonstrated that the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns and took reasonable steps to alleviate them.
  6. Given the resident’s concerns about “strange men” using the garage in front of her property, it was also reasonable that the landlord explained that its operatives used the garage for storage.
  7. In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns. It had no obligation to move the resident’s parking space or relocate/repurpose the garage. There was no evidence of a failure in its communication. The landlord also engaged with the resident’s other concerns and offered support that was appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the location of her parking space and a garage.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to continue to engage with the resident to investigate her concerns over her dispute with her neighbour.