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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202224560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224560

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

1 March 2024

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around changes to the parking system.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a Housing Association and the tenancy started on 23 May 2005.
  2. The resident made an initial complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2022 about new parking restrictions introduced by the landlord. She complained about the following:
    1. That residents were required to include their car registration details when applying for a new permit and this was not required previously.
    2. That she had not been given any visitors permits.
    3. That residents were not consulted before the recent changes were introduced.
  3. The landlord sent a ‘quick fix’ response on 15 September 2022 stating the following:
    1. Its parking contractors advised that two permits were allowed per property. The permits were linked to the registration of the car which also had to be registered to an address in the estate. That no visitors permit was allowed.
    2. The estate was managed by the leasehold team and due to its staff being on leave it was not able to provide a detailed response.
    3. It apologised, and informed the resident that it would investigate fully when staff returned from leave.
    4. It closed the complaint and asked the resident to request that the complaint to be reopened at a later date if she wished.
  4. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 10 0ctober 2022 requesting an update on her complaint. She asked the landlord to reopen her complaint on 26 October 2022, and sent a further letter to the landlord on 1 November 2022, asking for a reason her complaint had not been reopened. The landlord responded on 1 November 2022, apologised for the delayed response, and reopened the complaint.
  5. The landlord in its formal response of 14 November 2022 stated as follows:
    1. That parking would be enforced on the estate and changes made to the terms and conditions were to ensure only residents of each scheme were able to park onsite.
    2. That the new scheme meant each household on the estate was allowed to park two vehicles. That residents must provide proof that the vehicle was registered to an address on the estate.
    3. That the new permits had been specifically designed so that they could not be replicated, and this would help reduce illegal parking at the estate.
    4. That there was parking for visitors on the surrounding streets which were currently free of charge.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 15 November 2022. She stated that the residents had not been informed or consulted regarding the changes to the parking terms and conditions. She added that visitors permit had not been granted and the landlord’s staff were not informed of the changes until she mentioned it to them.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 December 2022, requesting an update on her complaint stating it had been twenty working days and she was yet to receive a response. Following contact from the resident, this Service sent a letter to the landlord on 13 January 2023 asking it to respond to the complaint by 20 January 2023.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 February 2023. In summary, it stated:
    1. Its contractors had been managing parking on the estate for a number of years. It requested the assistance of its contractors to manage parking to ensure that large or emergency vehicles could get easy access to the estate.
    2. That previous permits had serial numbers and were not vehicle registration specific. This meant that usage of those permits, particularly were reported lost, were much more difficult to monitor. This opened the system to abuse where some residents were using several permits at a time.
    3. That there was no agreement for visitors parking permits at the estate in the past. It found that what the resident believed to have been a visitor permit, was most likely a non-registration specific permit issued as per previous procedures and not a specific visitor permit.
    4. The parking contractor decided to go ahead and introduce the new permits as it had not been able to contact the leasehold team who currently manage the estate.
    5. It stated that visitors permit could be implemented through a virtual visitor app and that they would contact residents with more details shortly.
    6. It apologised for not informing residents before the changes were implemented and promised to collaborate closely with the leasehold team to ensure that the estate was managed more effectively, and information was communicated to the residents appropriately.
    7. It apologised for the delayed complaint response and offered £100 compensation, £50 for not opening the resident’s previous complaint and £50 for the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
  9. The resident contacted this Service stating she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response because residents had not been consulted prior to the changes being implemented. She added that she was unhappy that the parking restrictions were being always enforced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about changes to the parking system.

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord procured a parking control company in April 2018 to manage and enforce parking on the resident’s estate. The parking control management (PCM) commenced on 26 April 2018 and was enforced 24 hours, 7 days a week. The resident was issued a parking permit in April 2018, and she was able to apply for an additional parking permit which she thought was a visitors permit. However, the landlord has explained that specific visitors permit was not issued in 2018 but residents were able to apply for multiple permits using their residential address.
  4. The landlord in its stage 2 complaint response explained that the PCM experienced difficulty in contacting the property management officer to discuss the proposed changes, but had still decided to go ahead with the new permits . It advised the resident that there were no other changes to the terms and conditions of the parking enforcement with the resident’s address and apologised for not informing the resident before the changes were implemented.
  5. The landlord’s parking management policy outlines that it is appropriate for it to have an external parking control company manage permits and for it to charge residents for permits. This Service has not identified any evidence that the landlord was obliged to conduct a full resident consultation before changing the parking arrangements as the parking management policy only says this is needed before employing a parking control contractor.
  6. However, it is of concern that the parking control contractor was able to introduce changes without sufficient liaison with the landlord because its staff were unavailable. This was a missed opportunity for it to ensure residents were aware of the pending change in parking arrangements before the new system was introduced. The landlord does not dispute that this was a failing.
  7. Although it apologised, it has not put things right as it should have considered compensation given the inconvenience caused to the resident. This amounts to service failure by the landlord and an order of £50 compensation has been made below for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints will be responded to within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. The policy also states where the landlord can resolve the issues raised in a resident’s complaint to their satisfaction within 10 days, it may (if the resident agrees) close the case as a Quick Fix case.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘The Code’) states how landlords should respond to complaints, and this involves providing a stage 1 and 2 complaint response. The Code does not provide for ‘quick fix’ responses and so the landlord’s closure of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 15 September 2022 was not in line with the Code.This Service would have expected the landlord to respond to the resident’s formal complaint of 12 September 2022 within 10 working days.The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 November 2022. Overall, it took the landlord 44 working days to provide a stage 1 response. The delay would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Thiswas a failure and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code.
  3. Although in some cases extensions can be agreed with the resident, the onus is on the landlord to keep the resident informed on the progress of their complaint and when a response would be available. In this case, it was the resident who chased the landlord frequently for updates. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and made her unsure of where her complaint was within the landlord’s process. This Service will be making an order for the landlord to review its complaints policy.
  4. On 15 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint and outlined the reasons why, yet the landlord failed to do so. This led to the resident consistently questioning why her complaint was not being dealt with in accordance with its complaints policy. It was not until this Service became involved in January 2023 that the landlord escalated the complaint. The landlord eventually provided its stage 2 final response on 7 February 2023, over 2 months after the resident’s initial escalation request. This was a considerable delay and the landlord failed to respond to the complaint within the timescales set out in its policy.
  5. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, acknowledged this delay, apologised, and offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its mistakes, apologising, and offering compensation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £50 – £100 should be considered where there has been a service failure. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns around changes to the parking system.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next four weeks:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £150 comprised of:
      1. £100 as offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response of 7 February 2023.
      2. A further compensation of £50 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord writes to residents on the estate, providing information about visitors parking and an explanation as to how the new parking scheme operates.
  2. This Service recommends the landlord self-assess its complaint handling process and align with the new Code, when it comes into force on 1 April 2024.