Abri Group Limited (202127784)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127784

Abri Group Limited

29 August 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 parking at her sheltered scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and is recorded as being over 70 and having a mobility disability. The property is a bungalow on a small estate and part of a sheltered housing scheme for the over 55s. The parking on the estate is understood to comprise street parking in addition to small parking areas situated between some properties.
3. The tenancy agreement says that allocated / unallocated parking is included; that motor homes must not be parked on common parts; and that tenants must not park, store, or repair any vehicle which may cause a nuisance to their neighbours. The tenancy also says that tenants must not do anything that causes or is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance, or do anything which interferes with the comfort or convenience of people in the neighbourhood.
4. The landlord’s website says that disagreements about parking are not considered anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) unless there is a threat of violence or hate-related verbal abuse, and that mediation is one of its most successful tools in resolving neighbourhood disagreements.
5. The landlord’s community management procedure says it does not generally allocate parking spaces to individual properties but will mark out parking bays where appropriate. It also says that it will not get involved in any parking disputes and expects residents to resolve these between themselves.

Summary of events

6. In July 2020, the resident moved into the property. The landlord says that the resident was informed that parking was unallocated, but that she could park near a fence in the parking area between her and a neighbour’s property.
7. In early 2021, a new neighbour moved in, after which the resident, who said she had restricted mobility, reported that two parked vehicles did not give her enough space. She said she had spoken to her neighbour about the issue but the situation had not improved. The landlord responded that it did not get involved in parking disputes.
8. In May 2021, the landlord received contact from the resident and her neighbour. In a letter, the resident said that where her neighbour’s 2 vehicles and their visitors parked impacted her ability to drive in and out of the parking area. She was unhappy with her neighbour’s suggestion to knock on their door or temporarily park elsewhere when this occurred. She felt ‘keep clear’ markings needed to be painted over a certain area. The neighbour raised concern to the landlord about being told where not to park, and disputed blocking anyone in. The landlord sent a text message to the neighbour to be mindful when parking, and internally noted that the parties had been informed that it did not get involved in parking disputes and they needed to resolve the issue themselves.
9. In June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord several times for an update to her letter the previous month. She said she was disabled and said her neighbour parked so that she could not open her car door to the extent she needed, and also parked their cars in a way that made it difficult to drive out. She said she did not feel comfortable speaking directly to her neighbour. Following the resident’s initial contact, it was noted that the landlord did not get involved in parking disputes, and she would need to speak with her neighbour, however it is unclear she was updated and one contact record noted that callbacks had now been requested 3 weeks in a row.
10. In July 2021, the landlord received contact from the resident and her neighbour. Staff visited the resident in early July 2021, but the neighbour was out and the staff said they would visit again next time they were passing. On 23 July 2021, the landlord noted that staff visited again and explained to both parties that they would need to resolve the issue themselves.
11. The resident subsequently called and sent 4 letters in July and August 2021. She said her neighbour had resumed parking in an area that made it difficult for her to drive in and out. She restated that she thought that painting ‘keep clear’ in a particular area would help. She said that she was concerned about being able to make weekly health appointments, and was considering starting to park in the street. She said that the issue was affecting her health. Following these, the landlord internally noted that it would not normally get involved in parking. It also noted that it could not police how close to another vehicle someone parked, and that if the resident needed more room to get out, she should maybe park elsewhere.
12. It is not evident that the letters received responses, and on 11 October 2021, the landlord reviewed and discussed the case after it was internally flagged. It noted that there were allegations and counter allegations from the resident and her neighbour. It was concluded that there had been a failing to respond to all the resident’s correspondence appropriately, as while the landlord did not get involved in parking disputes, it was unclear this had been relayed to the resident.  It was noted that someone would be asked to contact the resident and see if there was any support or mediation that could be offered to resolve the dispute. Following this, it was noted that staff had visited the resident and did not believe there to be genuine parking ASB (it is unclear if this referred to previous visits or a recent one). It was also noted that if there was parking ASB, it could support the resident to complete diary sheets, work with tenancy compliance and make referrals for mediation.
13. The same month, the resident called the landlord. It was noted that she sounded distressed and said the issue was making her ill. She restated that her neighbour and their visitor’s parking made it hard to drive her car in and out. She reported that her neighbour had recently bought a campervan, and sparks from renovation works to this had affected her car. She had tried talking to her neighbour but they were rude and kept parking inadequately. She suggested bays to be painted to make it more clear.
14. On 3 November 2021, the landlord logged a complaint, and the resident sent a letter detailing current issues. She restated that her neighbour was doing up a camper van, and she raised concern about grinding, sanding, spraying and hosing related to this. She said the only solution was for the area to be marked out with spaces and ‘keep clear.’ She said that it should then be ensured that her neighbour only parked in their designated area and carried out no car body repairs. The landlord subsequently noted that the department that managed the scheme potentially had funding to paint parking bays and made a referral to its solicitor to check if there were any restrictions that prevented doing this. The same month, the landlord received contact from the resident’s neighbour about parking issues and a visit to both parties was proposed for 7 December 2021.
15. On 3 December 2021, the landlord received a letter from the resident which restated her concerns, the impact on her, and her views on the solution. On 7 December 2021, the landlord’s records note that it visited for the parking issues. It noted that the issue appeared to be with the number of cars parked in a confined space and access being restricted. It noted that it said it did not get involved directly with parking disputes, and that the resident and her neighbour should talk to each other to resolve the issue.
16. On 8 December 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It noted that staff had visited the previous day and tried to speak to the resident’s neighbour to resolve the situation. It said parking was difficult for it to manage as it did not have constant surveillance at its properties. It noted that there were no specified parking spaces and that residents usually came to an agreement in such a situation. It said that it had looked into painting parking lines, but this was not possible due to the layout of the street. It noted that there were issues between the resident and her neighbour and said it would continue to support them to try to work on their relationship, which it hoped would help with the parking situation.
17. Around this time, the landlord’s records note that it was internally miscommunicated that the landlord’s legal department had been referred the issue to deal with, and once this was clarified, the resident’s neighbour was offered mediation which they refused.
18. The landlord subsequently received correspondence from the resident on 22 December 2021 and 5 and 7 January 2022. She requested escalation of the complaint. She said that she suffered pain due to not being able to open her car door as wide as she needed and continued to find it difficult to drive in or out. She restated concern about her neighbour using the area to do up and sell cars, and debris from this affecting her own car. She said that her health was being affected and that she had missed 2 appointments because she could not drive out. She said she had explored parking elsewhere but this involved walking too far and was unsuitable, especially if carrying shopping. She asked if the landlord could visit and see if it found it easy to drive in and out of the parking area. She said she wanted her neighbour to be moved, but requested a parking space in her front garden if this was not going to happen.
19. On 8 and 13 January 2022, the landlord internally discussed the issue. It was noted that the resident’s neighbour owned 3 vehicles, but in staff opinion none were parked in a way that should impact access for the resident. It noted that the layout of the scheme may not lend itself to the provision of marked bays being an effective solution, and that it was felt that both neighbours needed to take responsibility for the situation.
20. On 24 January 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted that the resident parking close to her property and having easy access was important to her ability to live independently and go out and about. It noted that the parking arrangements were disputed between the resident and her neighbour and that this was affecting their relationship, resulting in alleged ASB from her neighbour and counter allegations about her. It noted that staff had previously visited and said spaces were not allocated to each property and a resolution would need to be reached between the neighbours. It also noted that staff had said that painting parking bays was not a suitable option for the street. It said that it was satisfied that it had acted on reports from both parties and provided suitable advice. It said that allegations and evidence was not anything it would consider ASB, and meant it was unable to take enforcement action. It said that if the resident felt concerned about her safety when interacting with her neighbour she should call the police. It noted that the resident and her neighbour had been offered mediation and both had rejected it, with the resident feeling this would not resolve relations with her neighbour and that they should be the subject of enforcement action. It said that it was unable to take action without sufficient evidence of behaviour that constituted ASB, and said that it had acted within the limits of its policies, procedures and responsibilities. It said that a team could help explore the request to convert the garden into a parking space, but this may require permission and her funding this herself. It noted that the resident requested to move to an alternative property and said that a transfer application could be completed via a website.
21. In May 2022, the landlord received contact from the resident and her neighbour about the issues continuing. It was noted that the resident was advised to keep a log and to report any incidents to both it and the police. It was noted that she could contact the landlord and the highways agency about getting a disabled parking bay.
22. In August 2022, the landlord received contact from the resident and her neighbour about the issues continuing. The same month, the landlord noted that it had received no contact from the resident about permission for a parking space in the garden, and it wrote to her enclosing a permission request form. It noted that a surveyor had reassessed the possibility of marking out bays and confirmed this was not appropriate due to vehicle sizes and the proximity of walls.

Assessment and findings

23. The resident has contacted the landlord about concerns with her neighbour’s parking multiple times, and her neighbour has contacted the landlord about their concerns about being told where to park.
24. The resident raised concern that the way her neighbour parked their vehicles next to her meant that she could not open her door wide enough. The landlord said it could not police how closely vehicles parked. It is recognised that the resident found it difficult if she could not open her door wide enough, but the landlord’s response on this aspect seems reasonable, as it considered this and set out a position. If the resident has more specific parking needs, her local authority may be able to assess and assist with this.
25. The resident requested for parking bays to be painted. The landlord said that parking bays were an unsuitable solution due to the layout of the areas for parking. Again, the landlord’s response on this aspect seems reasonable, as it considered this and set out a position in the timeframe of the complaint. The landlord reviewed this aspect again 7 months after its final response, finding that painting parking bays was not feasible, confirming that its original position was reasonable.
26. It is evident that the landlord has visited the resident and her neighbour, discussed matters with them, and had opportunity to consider matters in person. This shows that the landlord has made decisions after first hand inspection, as this Service would expect to see. The landlord’s ultimate position has been to offer both parties mediation and to decline to get involved further. However, while this is in line with the landlord’s community management procedure that it does not get involved in parking disputes, there is concern about some aspects of the landlord’s handling of the issue.
27. The landlord does not satisfactorily demonstrate that it appropriately acknowledged delays with its handling. The landlord provided a written response to the resident in December 2021 after multiple letters and contacts since May 2021, and it internally acknowledged delays. However, its responses to the resident did not satisfactorily acknowledge that there was a 7 month delay responding to the her concerns, and did not address many issues she had raised. This would have been appropriate, as had the landlord clarified certain aspects in a timely manner, this could have helped clarify some misperceptions the resident had about parking; helped avoid the matter becoming so protracted; and helped avoid the relationship between the neighbours breaking down as much as it did.
28. The resident raised concern about her neighbour parking in a certain spot, which made it difficult to drive in or out. She detailed the impact of issues on her health and ability to attend appointments. She contended that she had an allocated space and was entitled to a ‘keep clear’ sign on the fence. She detailed solutions such as painting of ‘keep clear’ markings. It is not evident that the resident had an allocated parking space or that the landlord was obligated to paint any markings, However, many concerns were not addressed for lengthy periods or at all. The landlord should have provided its position on a ‘keep clear’ marking the resident requested. It should also have demonstrated that it acknowledged the stated impact on the resident more, and comes across as unsympathetic by repeatedly not doing so. The landlord said that the neighbour did not block the resident in, but it is not clear that this followed a review of how easy it was to drive in and out of the parking area as she invited.
29. It is clear that the issue has been a significant factor in the relationship between the neighbours, and mediation between them may have been beneficial, but it is not clear that this was promoted in a helpful and resolution-focused way. While the landlord does not get involved in parking disputes, it can still take an active role in trying to encourage parties to resolve their differences in an effective way. However, mediation only seems to have been offered verbally, and it is not evident how effectively it was proposed and how much its benefits were highlighted, such as helping each party understand the other’s point of view and helping them work together to find solutions.
30. The landlord has internally said the issue was not believed to be genuine parking ASB. The landlord’s website says that disagreements about parking are not considered ASB unless there is a threat of violence or hate-related verbal abuse, which are not evident in this case. However, the landlord does not demonstrate whether it also considered what the tenancy agreement says on such issues, which would have been appropriate. The tenancy says that allocated or unallocated parking comes with the tenancy, so the resident has a right to park at the scheme. The tenancy goes on to say that tenants must not park motor homes in common areas; park, store, or repair any vehicle which may cause a nuisance; do anything that causes or is likely to cause nuisance and annoyance; or do anything which interferes with people’s comfort or convenience. The resident’s reports show she felt she was being caused nuisance, annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience.
31. Prior to the stage 1 and 2 responses, the resident reported that her neighbour had a campervan, and after the final response she supplied evidence to this investigation that seems to show they had 2 campervan-type vehicles and another vehicle. The resident also reported that her neighbour was carrying out repair to cars, including for the purpose of selling them. The landlord did not address these aspects in its response. These allegations should have prompted some clearer investigation and consideration of whether the neighbour’s actions went against the tenancy stipulation to not park motor homes; not park vehicles which may cause a nuisance; and not repair any vehicle which may cause a nuisance.
32. The landlord noted prior to its stage 2 response that the neighbour had 3 vehicles, but that there was no limit to how many vehicles a resident can own and park. This does not seem a reasonable or realistic approach in all circumstances. This does not acknowledge that under Sections 3.6 and 3.18 of the tenancy, relating to nuisance and parking, the impact of residents’ vehicular behaviour on other residents can be considered. The tenancy does not define what constitutes parking nuisance and interference with comfort and convenience, and therefore the landlord has discretion to consider a tenant’s number of vehicles. In this Service’s view, the landlord should also have demonstrated that it considered the reasonableness of any vehicular behaviour in light of the nature of the housing. What is reasonable in general needs housing may be less reasonable in more specialist housing such as a sheltered scheme where other residents may be more impacted, particularly vulnerable residents.
33. Overall, while the landlord’s policy is that it does not get involved in parking disputes, there were aspects of its handling that were not satisfactory. There were delays in responding to the resident as well as her neighbour, which it did not satisfactorily acknowledge. The landlord should have considered matters more than it did and does not demonstrate it satisfactorily considered all the resident’s concerns, the tenancy terms, or the fact that she lives at a sheltered housing scheme. It also often came across as unsympathetic in its lack of regard for a number of concerns and in its repeated emphasis that it did not get involved in parking disputes.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking at her sheltered scheme.

Reasons

35. The landlord does not demonstrate it satisfactorily considered all the resident’s concerns, the tenancy terms, or the fact that she lives at a sheltered scheme. There were delays in responding to the resident as well as her neighbour, which the landlord did not satisfactorily acknowledge. The landlord also comes across as unsympathetic in its lack of regard for a number of concerns and in its repeated emphasis that it does not get involved in parking disputes.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

36. The landlord to, within 4 weeks:
    1. apologise to the resident for how it has handled the concerns that she raised.
    2. pay the resident £300 for the issues identified with its handling.
37. The landlord to, within 6 weeks:
    1. review the resident’s concerns about the campervans against the tenancy agreement, and consider any appropriate action. It should then set out its position to the resident in writing. As part of this, it should assess current and historic evidence for the issue.
    2. review the resident’s concerns about vehicle repairs against any evidence and the tenancy agreement and consider any appropriate action. It should then set out its position to the resident in writing. If the issue is not currently evidenced, it should confirm how the resident can make reports about vehicle repairs for a swift assessment of these.
    3. assess the resident’s concerns about getting in and out of the parking area and the impact on her against the tenancy agreement requirement that parking should not cause nuisance, annoyance, discomfort and inconvenience. It should then consider any appropriate action and set out its position to the resident in writing. As part of this it should consider relevant factors such as the outcomes to orders 37 a and b; the number of vehicles; and the reasonableness of factors present given the nature of the housing scheme.
    4. re-offer mediation in writing to the resident, and her neighbour if she agrees, if it considers that this is the only option after taking the actions set out at orders 37 a to c. The landlord should ensure that the benefits of mediation are communicated when doing so.
    5. review its approach and staff training needs in respect to parking disputes, to ensure that it satisfies itself that tenancy agreement terms are not applicable before it declines to consider parking disputes.
38. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timeframes specified.

Recommendations

39. The landlord to review its complaint handling to ensure that it considers and addresses all relevant issues in its complaint responses.
40. The landlord to provide its position to the resident on ‘keep clear’ markings she requested.