A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202005635)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005635

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 September 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 is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking permit application.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued against her.

Background and summary of events

  1. The landlord introduced a new parking enforcement scheme at the resident’s development and on 6 September 2019 the parking contractor hand delivered letters to residents advising that the scheme would commence on 1 October 2019.  It advised that it would be permit parking only and that to obtain a new permit, residents had to meet the landlord’s criteria. The parking contractor also provided details of how residents could apply for a new permit, valid for a year.  It stated that the necessary documentation and payment should be provided by 20 September 2019 to allow time to process and issue permits.
  2. The resident emailed and phoned the parking contractor about obtaining a permit on Friday, 27 September 2019. The resident described her circumstances stating that “due to the nature of my work I lease a car because my work does involve driving. Therefore I may have a car for 3-6 months and then I get a new one”.
  3. In emails sent on Monday, 30 September 2019 at 14:43 and 15:30 the parking contractor advised the resident to liaise with the landlord’s housing management service as it required documents. The resident phoned the landlord on 1 October 2020, and in her version of events the landlord’s member of staff (who she named) advised her that it would phone the parking contractor and phone her back; the resident has stated that she called back at 17:15 that day and a colleague (who she also named) advised her that the member of staff she spoke to earlier would now call her back on 2 October 2020; however, the resident did not receive a returned phone call. The landlord’s tenancy records confirm that it spoke to the resident at 17:27 on 1 October 2019.
  4. The resident received PCN’s between 3 and 6 October 2019 for parking at the development without a permit. On 4 October 2019 the resident pursued the matter with the parking contractor advising that she had contacted the landlord but not received a response and suggesting that the parking contractor contact the landlord to finalise the permit. The resident argued that had the permit been issued on 27 or 30 September 2019 she would not have received the PCN’s (that she had received up to that point) and asked the parking contractor to cancel them.  The parking contractor advised that she could appeal the PCN’s.
  5. The parking contractor received the resident’s parking application on 7 October and issued temporary codes to the resident pending receipt of the permit by post.  By then the resident had been issued 4 PCN’s between 3 and 6 October 2019.
  6. On 19 November 2019 the resident advised the landlord that she had received the PCN’s, confirming her version of events. The landlord asked the parking contractor to investigate then forwarded the parking contractor’s response on 9 December 2019. After the resident challenged the response of the parking contractor, the landlord on 17 December 2019 advised that it had passed her complaint to the parking contractor management as it managed the car park and it did not have any dealings with the issuing of permits and tickets.
  7. In correspondence between 7 February 2020 and 3 March 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had not received a response from the parking contractor’s manager but that she had received letters dated 20 January 2020 demanding payment for the PCN’s from the parking contractor and its debt recovery agency. The resident stated that she would not be paying the charges as the landlord had contacted the parking management contractor and they had both failed to issue permits despite the evidence she provided. The landlord advised it did not manage the car park, had not received correspondence from the parking contractor and did not get involved in parking disputes. It agreed to forward the resident’s emails to the parking contractor.
  8. On 25 May 2020 the resident advised the landlord that the debt recovery agency was continuing to pursue payment of penalty charges and reiterating her view that she would not be in the situation had it sorted out the permit with the parking contractor in October 2019. The landlord asked the parking contractor to investigate which responded on 7 June 2020 providing its version of events and supporting information. The parking contractor noted that the resident did not start to enquire about permit until 27 September 2019 and did not return the complete application until 7 October 2019.  It further advised that appeals were made but rejected on the basis that the resident should not have parked on the development without permit on display. The landlord forwarded the parking contractor’s response to the resident who in response argued that there was sufficient time to be given a temporary code before the first PCN.
  9. In a further exchange of correspondence between 12 August 2020 and 17 September 2020 the resident stated that the debt recovery agency was still pursuing payment. The landlord advised that the parking contractor would reduce the charges from £640 (£160 per PCN) to £480 (£120 per PCN) as a goodwill gesture.  The landlord confirmed that it could not investigate as the parking was controlled and managed by the parking contractor and it should be the sole point of contact. In the interim, a County Court Judgement (CCJ) was placed on the resident’s credit file on 25 August 2020.
  10. Following contact by this Service, the landlord registered formal complaint. On 16 October 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It noted that the resident would have received the notification from the parking contractor on 6 September 2019 but only started enquiring about the permits on 27 September 2019 and did not submit an application until 7 October 2019. The landlord noted that tickets were received on 3 October 2019 and that the resident’s appeals were rejected as she should not have parked without a permit. It noted that the parking contractor made every attempt to reach an agreement before issuing a claim. The landlord concluded that it could not have assisted further.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint requesting that the landlord remove the PCN’s and the CCJ.  She stated that the landlord did not respond in time about applying for a new permit.  The resident also raised concerns about the parking contractor’s appeal process stating that the same member of staff was involved.
  12. On 6 January 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It advised that:
    1. It would only get involved in a PCN if there was evidence that a resident had been incorrectly ticketed.
    2. Evidence from the parking contractor showed that the resident was issued with four PCN’s during the period 3-6 October 2019 prior to the contractor receiving her application form on 7 October 2019. After the resident notified the landlord of the PCN’s it was correct in advising that it could not intervene, and the resident needed to contact the contractor direct.
    3. The contractor had advised that the resident’s appeals were rejected as the resident should not have parked on the development without a permit on display and that it sought to reach an agreement with the resident before referring the PCN’s to a debt recovery agency.
    4. With regards to the resident’s comments that there was an administrative error that prevented her from receiving her permit on time, there was no further information or evidence indicating that she made her request for a parking permit prior to 27 September 2019 or that a completed application form was received prior to the issuing of the first ticket on 3 October 2019.
    5. It had no jurisdiction on how the parking contractor managed its appeals process. The CCJ indicated that the contractor followed the correct protocol and due diligence.
    6. In conclusion, the landlord advised that it could find no service failure on its part or the parking contractor.
  13. On 18 January 2021, the resident’s MP referred the complaint to this Service in her capacity as a designated person.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s parking permit application

  1. The landlord provides residents with parking facilities at the resident’s development.  It is at the landlord’s discretion to decide what, if any, parking management arrangements there should be at the development and in this case, it employed a parking contractor to manage a permit system. The resident had a procedure by which she could appeal the PCN’s issued by the parking contractor, and then ultimately challenge any debt recovery via the courts. The Ombudsman cannot assess the actions of the parking contractor as it is not a member landlord. Furthermore, the debt recovery pursued by the parking contractor culminated in a CCJ being awarded and this can only be challenged in court.
  2. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether any act or omission by a landlord has had an adverse effect on a complainant. In doing so, this Service assesses how a landlord has dealt with reports it receives and if it has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  3. The information sent to residents in September 2019 confirmed that they needed to liaise with the parking contractor, providing the necessary information and payment to obtain a permit; there is no requirement for the landlord to get involved during this process.
  4. The resident, however, contacted the landlord on 1 October 2020 based on the advice of the parking contractor.  The landlord’s tenancy records confirm that at least one call was made that day but the landlord has not kept records of what it advised the resident or what was agreed.  This was a failing as the resident was requesting a service, assistance with obtaining a parking permit.  The landlord had a responsibility therefore to keep an audit trail of its actions and decisions, even if this was to confirm that it could not assist or intervene.
  5. The resident in her correspondence to the landlord was specific in her version of events confirming the names of the members of staff she spoke to on 1 October 2020 and the advice she understood they gave to her, which was that the landlord would contact the parking contractor. It was therefore evident that she wanted the landlord to investigate what happened on this date and 2 October 2019 when she was expecting a return phone call. The landlord did not investigate this matter.  It thereby failed to confirm its version of events and missed an opportunity to explicitly address the resident’s substantive complaint that it could have intervened to prevent PCN’s being issued.
  6. However, it cannot be concluded from the evidence that any omission by the landlord, in particular an omission to contact the parking contractor on 1 October 2020 as the resident understood should have happened, caused the PCN’s to be issued. Firstly, the parking contractor rejected the resident’s arguments within its own appeals procedure.  Moreover, the parking contractor confirmed to the landlord and resident in correspondence that the crucial factors were that the resident first enquired about a permit at a late stage and it did not receive the resident’s application until 7 October 2020.  Nonetheless, as the resident believed that the landlord had failed to contact the parking contractor, and that this was significant, the landlord should have addressed this point.

The landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about Penalty Charge Notices issued against her

  1. From November 2019 the resident advised the landlord that she had been issued PCN’s.  The correct process for the resident to challenge the PCN’s was to follow the parking contractor’s appeals procedure. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord referred her back to the parking contractor.
  2. The landlord, however, did forward the resident’s emails to the parking contractor and asked for its response.  The emails described the resident’s contact with the contractor and the landlord prior to the PCN’s being issued. It was appropriate that the landlord forwarded the emails as it remained for the parking contractor to decide whether to rescind the PCN’s or not. By forwarding the resident’s emails, it ensured that the parking contractor had the necessary information to make an informed decision on her case.  Correspondingly, by forwarding the parking contractor’s responses to the resident, including advising her that it had reduced the charge, the landlord ensured that she had relevant, updated information that would affect her decision whether to pay her debt or not.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her parking permit application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued against her.

Reasons

The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her parking permit application.

  1. The landlord has not kept records of what it advised the resident or what was agreed when she spoke to it on 1 October 2020.  This was a failing as the resident was requesting a service, assistance with obtaining a parking permit
  2. In responding to the resident’s subsequent correspondence, the landlord failed to confirm its version of events in respect of the resident’s phone calls of 1 October 2020.  As such it missed an opportunity to explicitly address the resident’s substantive complaint that it could have intervened to prevent PCN’s being issued.

The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response her concerns about Penalty Charge Notices (PCN’s) issued against her.

  1. It was appropriate that the landlord referred the resident back to the parking contractor after she informed it of the PCN’s.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord forwarded the resident’s emails as it remained for the parking contractor to decide whether to rescind the PCN’s or not, and by forwarding the resident’s emails, it ensured that the parking contractor had the necessary information to make an informed decision on her case.  Correspondingly, by forwarding the parking contractor’s responses to the resident and advising her that it had reduced the charge, it ensured that she had relevant, updated information that would affect her decision whether to pay her debt or not.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord pays the resident £50 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate what happened on 1 October 2019 when the resident phoned the landlord and on 2 October 2019 when she was expecting a return phone call.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord takes steps to ensure that it maintains records of what was discussed and decided upon during phone calls with its residents.