Catalyst Housing Limited (202003824)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003824

Catalyst Housing Limited

7 January 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold fixed-term tenant whose tenancy began on 8 May 2019. The landlord has described the property as a two-bedroom four-person flat and advised this Service that the property is part of a ‘new build’ block that was handed over from developers in March 2019.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the resident should not park on the premises or on any land owned by the landlord ‘except in defined parking areas and only in the manner permitted or required’ by the landlord.
The landlord’s website has a ‘national guidelines for your tenancy’ page that shows that it is required to show tenants it has a ‘clear decision making process’.
The resident has provided copies of pages from a ‘guide to your new home’ document for his property. This states that ‘your building has a car park located next to it on the ground floor level’ and invites the resident to speak to the landlord should he wish to apply for a car park permit.
The landlord has a ‘complaints procedure’ that sets out a two-stage process with responses required within 10 working days at both stages.

Summary of Events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2019, enquiring about the potential for a parking space. He said this had not been made clear to him during his move to the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 June 2019 to follow up on the tenancy sign up. It advised him that there was no parking allocated for his property, it could not offer a permit and he should approach the local authority to see if they could provide a permit outside of the property development.
The resident wrote to the company responsible for managing the car park outside his block on 5 June 2020 – he said he had struggled with a parking issue since he moved into the property. He explained that the local authority had refused his request for a parking permit because of his postcode but he needed his car for his living. The company replied to the resident on 9 June 2020, advising him to speak to the landlord to obtain permission for a permit.
The local authority wrote to the resident on 26 June 2020 – it confirmed that his address was not eligible for a parking permit as the resident’s road was controlled by a private parking company.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 July 2020 to follow up with it on a parking issue that he said they had discussed several weeks previously. The landlord replied on 13 July 2020 – it apologised for the delay and said it was looking into a solution given the local authority had not allowed him to apply for a permit.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 30 July 2020 – the resident said he was misled as he was not told that he would not get a parking space with the property and the handbook did not advise of this; the landlord advised that there was nothing it could do to assist with the parking issue and suggested he consider renting or purchasing a private space.
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2020 and asked it to consider the resident’s concerns through its complaints process.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 September 2020 and advised it would respond in full by 12 October 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 September 2020 – it told the resident that he was ‘not entitled to a parking permit as one was not awarded to you at the time of signing your tenancy’.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails during 4-13 October 2020 when the former asked about escalating his complaint and the latter apologised that its email of 30 September 2020 was ‘abrupt and without much explanation’. The resident also provided the landlord with a copy of the booklet he was given when he moved to the property.
The landlord’s internal records show that when investigating the resident’s complaint, it noted on 20 October 2020 that ‘if he was not given a permit at the time of signing his tenancy he will never be eligible for one’. It added that it held a spreadsheet showing which properties came with a parking space allocated and the resident’s property was not on this.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 21 October 2020. It decided that:
1. it could not give parking spaces to residents
2. there were currently no spaces available for the resident
3. due to a shortage of spaces, they were being allocated ‘through the tenancy agreements’
4. it apologised if it previously implied that he would be able to get a parking space.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2020, asking to escalate his complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation on 3 November 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 November 2020, providing information about his tenancy and a copy of the local authority’s rejection of his permit application. He explained that he drives to work and cannot get rid of his car.
The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 11 November 2020, advising it was awaiting information from one of its internal teams before responding in full.
The landlord issued a final complaint response on 30 November 2020. It concluded that:
1. parking bays at the resident’s block were limited and there were fewer bays than properties with only 18 allocated to the block
2. only the larger properties within the development were eligible for parking spaces and it was not possible for one-bedroom properties
3. the arrangements at the development were in line with others in the city where some of them ‘contain only enough parking spaces for larger family homes, where people are more likely to have children, making public transport more difficult to use’
4. there was no facility for parking attached to the resident’s property and it was not possible for another resident’s space to be re-allocated to his property.
The resident advised this Service in April 2021 that he remained dissatisfied because:
1. he has two bedrooms, not one, and he is aware of other two-bedroom properties in the block that have allocated parking spaces
2. it was unclear how the landlord had decided which properties got parking spaces allocated
3. there are 10 spaces at the front of the block, which the landlord did not mention, in addition to the 18 at the rear of the block
4. the parking restriction was not mentioned in the tenancy agreement and he would not have accepted the property had he known about the lack of parking.
The landlord advised this Service in October 2021 that there were more flats than parking spaces for the resident’s block and allocation of the spaces had been determined at the point of the sign up of the first set of tenants.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s tenancy agreement does not oblige the landlord to provide him with a parking space. It sets out that the resident may only park in the manner that the landlord has set for the location. The landlord’s advice offered in June 2019 that the resident’s property does not have an allocated parking space was therefore not contrary to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The resident’s initial parking concern was raised on 21 June 2019 and the landlord communicated its decision within a week of this date. This was a reasonable timescale in which to respond. However, the landlord failed to answer the resident’s concern that he had not been advised of the lack of parking prior to taking up his tenancy – it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to investigate, or address, this point.
Further, there is no evidence that the landlord was explicit about the allocation of parking bays and parking arrangements at the property either at the viewing or sign-up to the property. The landlord should have been aware that parking is an important issue for many residents which they would want to be fully informed about. Given the limited parking at the development, it would have been advisable to make clear the situation to potential tenants, which in turn would have better managed expectations and avoided disappointment, frustration and inconvenience. The landlord’s failure to be transparent on this point was unreasonable.
The only documentation that has been provided to this Service that was apparently made available around the time of the tenancy start in May 2019 is a ‘guide to your new home’ booklet that indicated the resident would be able to apply for a permit to the block car park. This contradicted both the subsequent internal feedback from the landlord in October 2020, that the resident would not have been entitled to a permit if he was not given one when his tenancy began, and feedback provided to this Service in October 2021, that permits were only made available to the initial set of tenants. It was unreasonable that the landlord gave the resident a false expectation that he may be able to obtain a parking space or permit when it later confirmed that this had not been possible from the point his tenancy was signed.
Although the landlord apologised in its initial complaint response for any incorrect implications it made on the resident’s ability to obtain a parking space, this did not offer sufficient redress given the inconvenience caused to the resident. It failed to explain how it had decided which properties were eligible for a parking space, advise why it had implied he would be able to obtain a permit or demonstrate that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint – the landlord therefore failed to offer redress to the resident in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
It remains unclear how the landlord determined which properties were entitled to a parking allocation. In its final complaint response, it said that spaces were not available for one-bedroom properties but the resident’s property is a two-bedroom property so this would not account for why he was not entitled to a parking allocation. The landlord’s failure to set out how it decided which properties were assigned car parking allocations and when this decision was made was not in line with its tenancy guidelines commitment to have a ‘clear decision making process’ and was therefore inappropriate.
In summary, the landlord was not obliged to provide the resident with a car parking space. However, it failed to answer the resident’s concern that he was not provided with this information before his tenancy began and it has still not given a full explanation as to how it determined which properties were allocated parking spaces.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.

Reasons

The landlord did not answer the resident’s concerns from June 2019 to date that he was not advised about the parking situation prior to signing his tenancy except to offer an apology for any false implications it had given. Its subsequent explanations about its parking allocation decision-making process were incomplete and did not demonstrate why the resident had not been entitled to a space.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. explain how it decided which properties in his block would be allocated spaces and when it made this decision.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £175 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure in its handling of his concerns about the allocation of parking spaces.
The landlord to consider amending its viewing and sign-up procedures, to pro-actively make clear to applicants the parking provision at a development and surrounding area.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.