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

Abri Group Limited (202218106)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218106

Abri Group Limited

4 September 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 handling of reports that the resident was unable to use her parking space.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property. The resident’s parking space was included in her purchase of the property. The property is a new build, with neighbouring blocks still under construction by the developer.
  2. The resident’s property was completed in June 2021. The developer of the property was continuing to build neighbouring blocks, and so arranged with the landlord that it could use the resident’s parking space while the works were being completed. This was on the proviso that the developer would provide a temporary space for the resident to use while hers was unavailable. The resident confirmed that she was happy with this arrangement on 2 July 2021.
  3. The resident had access to the temporary space for approximately six weeks. The developer then contacted the resident in December 2021, and moved her parking to a different space. The resident had access to this space for a further two weeks, at which point the developer took the space back, leaving the resident without a parking space. On 27 June 2022, the resident reported that she had not been able to use her space for the last six months. She asked to be compensated for the time she was unable to use this service. The landlord has stated that the resident submitted a complaint regarding the same issue on 11 July 2022.
  4. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord reviewed its own stock of parking spaces on 11 July 2022, but found that they had all been allocated. It contacted the developer on 20 July 2022, to arrange for an alternative space to be provided for the resident. The developer was continuing to build on the site and was unable to make a space available immediately. The landlord continued to chase the developer for an update over the next few months. The developer identified a temporary space for the resident’s use on 2 September 2022, it stated to the landlord that it would need a couple of weeks to finalise the area and remove any fencing which currently restricted access.
  5. The landlord sent its stage one response on 5 September 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident, and explained that it had arranged a temporary alterative space whilst hers was being used. The landlord identified that it had not communicated properly with all the parties involved, such as the developer and sub-contractor. It stated that in future it would ensure that construction works would not monopolise resident parking, without a suitable alternative being supplied. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 September 2022, as the landlord had not addressed her request to be compensated.
  6. The landlord responded on 28 October 2022. It confirmed that it had now allocated an alternative space for the resident’s use. The landlord stated that it should have considered compensating the resident at stage one, in recognition of her inconvenience. It therefore offered the resident £200 compensation.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to this Service in November 2022, in which she explained that the landlord had still not supplied an alternative space for her use. The resident again confirmed in May 2023 that she was still without parking, and damage had been sustained to her car. The resident would like to be given access to her space again and to be compensated for the time she was without this service.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has stated to this service that subsequent to completing the landlord’s complaint procedure, her car was damaged due to having to park on the road. Under paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. In matters of determining negligence, it would be more appropriate for this aspect to be considered through the resident’s car insurance. The focus of this investigation will therefore be confined to the landlord’s response to reports that the resident’s reports that she was unable to use her parking space.

The landlord’s handling of reports that the resident was unable to use her parking space.

  1. According to the resident’s lease agreement, the resident’s parking space was included in the conveyance of her property. The landlord’s leasehold management policy states that it acknowledges that its role as a landlord and freeholder includes an obligation to maintain the structures, communal areas and surrounding environments.
  2. When the landlord sold the property to the resident, it was contractually obliged to provide access to the entirety of the property laid out in the lease agreement. However, as building works were still being undertaken onsite, the landlord arranged with the developer for the resident’s space to be utilised for construction works. This was on the proviso that the developer provided a temporary space for the resident during the works. As the landlord had brokered this arrangement, and had accepted payment for the resident’s property (and car parking space) in full, it would be obliged to ensure that the resident was provided with a temporary parking space as agreed. As the parking was part of a legal conveyance, any changes to the resident’s parking space would be expected to be communicated to the resident by the landlord.
  3. The resident only had use of the alternative parking for approximately 8 weeks, before the developer removed her access to the parking space. This was not appropriate, as the resident owned the leasehold to her space, and through the agreement with the landlord, had a right of access to the alternative space. The resident should have been provided by the developer with a space for the entirety of the works. The landlord had brokered the arrangement between the parties and accepted payment from the resident for the property, on the understanding that this agreement would be upheld. Therefore, once the developer renegaded on the arrangement, the landlord would be expected to intercede of the resident’s behalf.
  4. Although the developer moved the resident from her alternative space in December 2021, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident informed the landlord of being unable to use her space until 6 months later in June 2022. The landlord would need knowledge of the issue in order to assist the resident, and help put this issue right.
  5. Once the landlord was aware that the developer was not acting within the confines of its prior arrangement, it acted appropriately by considering if it had any spaces available to provide the resident with temporary parking. The landlord contacted the developer on 20 July 2022, and asked them to provide an alternate space for the resident. When the developer stated there were no spaces available, the landlord reinforced its prior agreement, and insisted that the developer make adjustments to provide the resident with a space. This was appropriate, as the landlord was working proactively to ensure that its obligation to provide a space for the resident was being fulfilled.
  6. The developer had made an error with the available spaces and explained in July 2022 that it did not have extra spaces available. The evidence shows that the landlord continually chased the developer for a solution to this issue from July 2022, until November 2022 when it sent its final response. The developer was unable to provide a space immediately, but eventually stated in September 2022 that a space could be made temporarily available for the resident.
  7. The landlord acted appropriately in its initial complaint response, by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience and explaining that it was arranging alternative parking for her. The landlord assured the resident that it would endeavour to improve its communication with third parties, to ensure that future construction work did not monopolise resident parking. However, the landlord failed to review the resident’s request to be compensated. This was not appropriate as this service’s complaint handling code (the code) states that the landlord must consider all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
  8. In the landlord’s final response, it acted appropriately by apologising for its failure to consider the resident’s compensation request. It offered the resident £200 compensation, in recognition of her inconvenience in having to pursue this issue. However, despite the landlord acting proactively throughout June to November 2022 to find a solution to the resident’s parking issues, the landlord then failed to manage the issue through to completion.
  9. The resident has explained to this service that she was still without a temporary space in May 2023. This is not appropriate, as the code states that any remedy offered in the landlord’s complaint responses must be followed through to completion. The landlord has explained that it again thought that its contractors were supplying a space to the resident throughout this time. This is not appropriate, as the landlord is responsible for providing the resident with a space to her property, and would therefore be expected to manage this issue proactively.
  10. After being contacted by this service in May 2023 regarding the resident’s complaint, the landlord liaised with the developer. It contacted the resident in June 2023 on behalf of the developer, where it offered to either legally conveyance the temporary space to the resident, or offered for the developer to rent the parking space at a rate of £50 a week (backdated) for the full period of works. A temporary space would also be provided to the resident. The landlord has stated that the resident chose the second option, and it has calculated the backdated reimbursement amount from the developer to be £1,250.
  11. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the developer on the resident’s behalf, and ensure that she was given both a temporary space and compensation for the time she was unable to use her parking space. However, this was delayed as the landlord failed to continue to manage the issue, and ceased to communicate with the all parties involved. This was not appropriate, as the resident was without a parking space for an additional year after she reported the issue in June 2022.
  12. The landlord has identified some failings and has attempted to put things right for the resident. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of compensation does not fully redress its failings in this case, as further errors have been identified in the course of this investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports that the resident was unable to use her parking space.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £450 compensation made up of:
      1. £250 compensation for its failure to continue to manage a resolution to this issue.
      2. The £200 previously offered during its complaint procedure, if this has not already been paid.
    2. Continue to liaise between the developer, contractor and resident. The landlord must ensure that the developer fulfils its promises to the resident, including the payment of the backdated reimbursement.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within the same four week period.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its communication processes with third parties, ensuring that it is aware of any issues between its contractors and residents.