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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202229901)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229901

Southern Housing Group Limited

18 July 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 the landlord’s handling of parking management at the resident’s block by its freeholder’s managing agent.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord of a flat. It has the head lease of the property from the freeholder, which has a managing agent for the block that uses a contractor to manage the car park, where the resident has a designated parking space.
  2. Following the cancellation of 2 penalty charge notices (PCN) from the parking contractor to the resident in 2020 while he was parked in his designated space, the car park’s zoning was changed in November 2021. As the contractor required residents to display the correct permit to park in their spaces without receiving a PCN, which the above PCNs were issued for and successfully disputed, new permits were sent to them at the time via their landlords for the changed zoning. There was then a problem with the new permits that replacements were issued for, and the resident was sent another replacement permit from the landlord at his request in December 2021 as he no longer had the original, receiving a grace period until he could display this.
  3. The resident subsequently received another PCN from the parking contractor while parked in his designated space in August 2022 because he displayed an old permit for the car park’s previous zoning. He therefore attempted to dispute this with the managing agent directly until January 2023, when he asked the landlord to do so as he was being threatened with legal action unless he paid the PCN. It told the agent his old permit displayed the correct bay number for his space and this only showed a different zone number because of the above change. The landlord therefore asked the agent why the latest PCN had not been cancelled when this had been done previously and the resident was not responsible for the zoning information on the permit.
  4. The managing agent told the landlord that, as new parking permits with the changed zoning had previously been issued to residents via their landlords in 2021 with a grace period to allow these to be received, the landlord was responsible for providing this to the resident. The agent therefore declined to take any further action for this or to communicate with residents except via their landlords, as these were considered to be responsible for residents. The resident then made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord in February 2023 about it not resolving his parking concerns contrary to his lease so he was threatened with legal action, its poor communication, him receiving the PCN, it not using e-permits or other solutions to avoid this, and his stress, time and trouble.
  5. The resident therefore asked the landlord to cancel his PCN, refund him for this, use a parking system that avoided this, hold regular local residents’ meetings, have a designated staff member for parking, compensate him, and no longer subject him to enforcement in the car park. Its March 2023 stage 1 complaint response said signs clearly set out parking restrictions, the freeholder could change these any time so these had to be followed to avoid PCNs, the managing agent had not yet sent it his PCN but it considered this to be correct, and it would ask if residents wanted meetings. The landlord added that parking spaces were at the freeholder’s discretion and their managing agent solely managed the car park contract, but it asked the agent to consider e-permits.
  6. The landlord therefore declined to uphold the complaint as the new permit it sent was not displayed, contrary to the car park’s restrictions, but it apologised for its communication delays. The resident’s March 2023 final stage complaint reiterated his concerns and added the landlord had not lobbied the managing agent to resolve these, the lack of permit requirements in his lease superseded the restrictions so he did not have to follow these, and his numerous parking queries. The landlord’s May 2023 final stage response apologised and offered £50 for late complaint responses, but repeated its position, adding it was still looking at other parking solutions, did not have enough blocks to manage this itself, but it would pass on his request for more resident consultation.
  7. The resident subsequently complained to the Ombudsman that, unlike its staff’s verbal agreement, the landlord did not agree in writing he should not receive PCNs for parking in his own space, contrary to his lease, and the parking enforcement contract did not benefit and was not requested by residents. He therefore asked for £170 to refund him for clearing the PCN, an audit of the parking system, and e-permits to avoid having to display permits in vehicles. The landlord later told us staff shortages delayed its complaint responses, but its new policy, process, restructuring, and recruitment would improve this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has described raising unresolved concerns with the landlord about its handling of parking management at his block since 2019, which is concerning. However, this investigation is limited to considering its handling of the events in his case since 2022. This is in accordance with paragraph 42c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As the resident’s stage 1 complaint to the landlord about its handling of parking management was made in February 2023, this investigation will only consider a reasonable period of within 12 months of this from 2022.
  2. The resident has also disputed the legality of the parking management at his block based on the terms of his lease, which is of concern. This is nevertheless not something that is within the scope of this investigation to consider. This is in accordance with paragraph 42f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. As we do not have the authority to determine the legality of contracts, or the correct interpretation of leases, in the way that a court or tribunal might, this investigation will not seek to do so.

Parking management

  1. The resident’s lease with the landlord states he has the right to use his block’s car park at all times to occupy and enjoy his property, except for the parking spaces, which are only intended to be used for such parking as is specified by it, and it can reallocate his parking space with at least 2 weeks’ written notice. He is only permitted to park in his designated parking space and he is obliged to pay it a service charge for the car park. The landlord’s head lease with the freeholder states the latter has reasonable discretion, when acting reasonably and in accordance with good estate management principles, to provide services or amenities for the benefit of the car park’s users.
  2. The landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about the PCN he received from the parking contractor while he was parked in his designated space with an old parking permit on 14 August 2022. This is because, after he informed it in January 2023 that he had unsuccessfully attempted to dispute this directly with the managing agent since August 2022, it contacted the agent about this itself on 30 January 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord asked the agent at that time why the PCN had not been cancelled, as this had been done previously when the resident’s permit showed the correct bay, and he was not responsible for the different zoning information after this had been changed in November 2021.
  3. It was suitable the landlord contacted the managing agent on the resident’s behalf because he described being unable to resolve this with the agent and facing legal action to pay the PCN. The agent also told it they would no longer communicate with residents except via their landlords, as these were considered to be responsible for residents, and so the agent declined to respond to him directly again. Therefore, as the landlord was now the resident’s only method of communicating with the agent that managed the car park via the contractor, it was appropriate that it liaised with the agent about his PCN and his other parking concerns for the rest of his case. This is especially because he paid it service charges to use the car park as specified by it under his lease.
  4. As the landlord’s head lease gave the freeholder discretion to provide car park services at the resident’s block via their managing agent and the agent’s parking contractor, the landlord was limited to communicating with the agent about his PCN and other parking concerns. This also meant it was unable to require the agent to cancel the PCN when the latter declined to do so on 30 January 2023, stating the landlord was responsible for providing him with the new parking permit showing the changed zoning that the agent previously sent it in November 2021. It was therefore understandable that the resident’s PCN had still not been cancelled after the landlord asked the agent to review this, as it could not force a cancellation.
  5. However, it is concerning that the landlord did not communicate the outcome of its above discussion with the managing agent to the resident at the time or after he chased it for this on 9 February 2023, when it did not respond to him, so he had to make a stage 1 complaint to it on the next day. This was unreasonable, as he should not have been required to complain to it just to obtain the outcome of an enquiry it had explicitly made on his behalf at his request, which he was no longer able to seek from the agent that declined to respond to residents directly. The resident therefore experienced an unnecessarily excessive month and a half delay before he received the outcome of his PCN enquiry from the landlord in its stage 1 complaint response of 16 March 2023.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that it previously sent the resident a new parking permit with changed zoning when this was provided by the managing agent in November 2021, and that it then gave him a replacement permit when there was an issue with these. It added that, as he told it he needed another replacement permit as he no longer had the original, it sent this to him on 3 December 2021, with a grace period until he could receive and display this. The landlord therefore concluded that the fact that signs clearly set out the restrictions requiring new permits with changed zoning to be displayed to avoid PCNs meant these had to be followed, and that the resident was responsible for not doing so after it had provided him with a new permit.
  7. It was understandable the landlord reached the above conclusion after it gave the resident a new parking permit with changed zoning and it was suggested that not this but an old permit was displayed when he received the PCN. It would nevertheless have been preferable if it had confirmed with the managing agent that this had occurred by obtaining the copy of the PCN it had requested from them to do so instead of deciding that this was correct. It was suitable that the landlord explained that the freeholder could change the parking restrictions at any time, as this was outlined in the head lease, and that it responded to the resident’s queries by agreeing to ask if residents wanted the meetings he requested, and if the agent would consider the e-permits he asked for.
  8. It was also appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for its above communication delays after he had asked it to contact the managing agent about the PCN on his behalf and it delayed communicating the outcome to him. However, it is of concern that it did not offer him any other remedies for this, particularly as he reported experiencing stress, time, and trouble from this and being threatened with legal action for £56.68 increasing by £28.34 per month for his PCN. The resident’s subsequent final stage complaint of 28 March 2023 reiterated his concerns regarding the PCN and the parking arrangements at his block, as well as the landlord’s lack of lobbying of the agent about this, poor communication, and his numerous further parking queries.
  9. It is therefore concerning that the landlord’s final stage complaint response of 31 May 2023 only responded to some of the resident’s above queries while repeating its stage 1 response’s position on his PCN. It was reasonable that it apologised and awarded him £50 compensation for its complaint handling delays, and that it told the Ombudsman it sought to prevent these in the future with its new policy, process, restructuring and recruitment, as it had been delayed by staff shortages. It was also suitable that the landlord agreed to pass on the resident’s feedback that he sought greater resident consultation to its service charge and housing teams, and to update him on the electronic and virtual solutions it was looking at to replace parking permits.
  10. It was nevertheless inappropriate that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that it did not respond to many calls and emails or outline how this would improve, but called from withheld numbers he could not return, or about the hierarchy of different parties at his block. It is also of concern that it did not respond to him about how parking permits were controlled, enforced, confirmed, given grace periods, inspected, notified, communicated and cancelled, as well as that it provided no details or timescales for it to update him on its consultations on regular local residents’ meetings and e-permits. However, it is noted the landlord explained tenants at the block did not have designated parking spaces after the resident disputed how others parked there.
  11. Therefore, while the landlord did not have the ability to cancel the resident’s PCN, it delayed communicating with him about this and did not address all of his other parking and communication queries or remedy this, which was unreasonable. This was contrary to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to put things right, and it also did not demonstrate that it followed our principle to learn from outcomes by showing how its above failures would be prevented from occurring again in the future. Our remedies guidance recommends up to £100 to recognise such delays in getting matters resolved and resulting distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, so the landlord has been ordered below to pay this to the resident.
  12. The landlord has also been ordered below to write to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him. It has additionally been ordered to contact him to provide details and timescales for it to update him on its regular local residents’ meetings and e-permit consultations, as well as to respond to his outstanding queries from its complaint responses. The landlord has been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating with residents of properties that it is the head leaseholder of. This is to ensure that it responds to all of their queries promptly, regularly, and in full in every case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of parking management at the resident’s block by its freeholder’s managing agent.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation within 4 weeks in recognition of it delaying communicating with him about his PCN, not addressing all of his other parking and communication queries, and not remedying this.
    2. Write to the resident within 4 weeks to apologise for the further failings identified by this investigation, accept responsibility for these, and acknowledge their impact on him.
    3. Contact the resident within 4 weeks to provide details and timescales for it to update him on its regular local residents’ meetings and e-permit consultations, and to respond to his outstanding queries from its complaint responses.
  2. The landlord shall contact the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order and whether it will follow the below recommendation.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to communicating with residents of properties that it is the head leaseholder of. This is to ensure that it responds to all of their queries promptly, regularly, and in full in every case.