Clarion Housing Association Limited (202103104)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103104

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 February 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

The complaint concerns information provided by the landlord relating to car parking outside the resident’s property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
On 15 July 2020 the landlord wrote to all residents of the scheme to inform them of changes it was making to car parking. It explained that it would be enforcing the relevant clauses of the residents’ tenancy agreements which allocated a single parking bay per property. It further stated that it would no longer allow informal agreements between residents to use additional bays or to use the bays for reasons other than the parking of a roadworthy vehicle, such as the storage of rubbish.
The resident raised a complaint into the matter on 26 April 2020. She received a stage one complaint response from the landlord on 7 August 2020 and a stage two complaint response on 16 September 2020.
The resident then brought the complaint to this Service and an investigation report was issued on 9 March 2021. The report found no evidence of service failure by the landlord as it was acting within the terms of the tenancy agreement,
Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that we will not consider matters which “the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. Therefore, this report will not consider any elements of the resident’s complaint that had been raised as part of the previous complaint procedure.
However, this report is able to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s additional questions and requests for information raised following the conclusion of the previous complaint and determine whether the landlord’s response to these queries was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house within an estate managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s unauthorised parking and abandoned vehicles procedure document describes how it responds to enquiries and complaints about parking. This, in part, states that “where possible the Contact Centre will provide residents with information as to where they can and cannot park, what type of vehicles are allowed to be parked and where (if appropriate) visitors are allowed to park”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord will first attempt to resolve the complaint informally. If that is not possible it will provide a formal stage one complaint response. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s process. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The policy also describes the circumstances where the landlord will not consider a complaint. These include “matters already being dealt with by the Ombudsman service”.
The complaints policy states that the landlord aims to “put things right within reasonable timescales”. However, the policy does not provide specific timescales for responding to complaints. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) requires for complaint response timescales in landlords’ complaints procedure to be for the landlord to respond at the first stage of the complaint process within ten working days of receiving a complaint, and to respond at the second and final stage of the complaint process within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. If there are delays, the landlord should update the resident, explain the reasons for the delay and agree a revised timescale for responding to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 2 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and provided information on an upcoming change in the contractor responsible for managing the car parking within the scheme. It explained that the change would take place on 1 April 2021 and followed a lengthy procurement process that covered the whole region.
The landlord went on to explain that residents would be given the option as to whether their parking bay would be monitored by the contractor and confirmed that residents would no longer be allowed to swap bays which were allocated to each property. It also informed the resident that it had moved around some of the bays in order to have residents’ allocated bay as close to their individual properties as possible, and that as the resident’s bay was already in front of her property this had remained unchanged. The landlord also confirmed that there was one bay allocated for visitors, which would be shared by all residents.
The resident replied on 2 March 2021 and stated that the landlord had discriminated against her by not allowing her household to have a second parking bay. She disputed the reason given by the landlord for changing the parking bays. She requested that as the scheme had two visitor bays, the second one should be allocated to her household.
The landlord wrote again to the resident on 16 March 2021. It explained that due to a number of concerns raised by different residents, the fairest way to handle the matter was to allocate a single space for each property and place that space as close as possible to each property. It noted that it had originally been given incorrect advice regarding the number of visitor bays and confirmed that there was only one visitor bay. It explained where on the parking map the visitor bay was situated. The landlord also stated that it would be writing to all residents to make clear that there was only one visitor bay within the scheme.
The resident replied to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and enquired if it was its policy that residents were unable to park in another resident’s bay, or if it was the policy of the parking contractor.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s query on 18 March 2021 and informed her it had been passed on to its housing team.
On 20 April 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint as it had not responded to her 16 March 2021 email.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 April 2021 and sent a stage one complaint response on 10 May 2021. It stated that its newly appointed parking contractor would follow the parking enforcement procedure as set out by the landlord. It also noted that the changes it had made in parking enforcement and the reasons for those changes had been explained to the resident in the previous complaint she had raised.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 May 2021 and requested to escalate the complaint. She described the grounds for the request as:
1. Residents were given the option to opt out of being monitored by the parking contractor. The resident had made the decision to opt out and did not understand why the new parking enforcement regulations still applied to her.
2. She was unclear whether she was supposed to follow the rules as set out by the landlord, or the rules as set out by the contractor and required further clarification.
3. The parking contractor allowed two cars to be registered at each property, which seemed to contradict the landlord’s advice that each property has only one parking bay.
4. The landlord had given conflicting advice on whether the scheme had one or two visitor parking bays and it was not clear how long a visitor could remain parked for.
5. The landlord had stated that mobility scooters were allowed to be parked in the allocated bay despite not meeting the definition of a roadworthy vehicle as they are not taxed and do not require a MOT.
6. The landlord and contractor had stated that CCTV would be installed to monitor parking and she would like an update as to when this would be put in place.
7. Whether the decision to opt-in or opt-out of monitoring of the parking space required the tenancy agreement to be changed which, as stated in clause 7 (altering the agreement) of the tenancy agreement, would first require the written permission of the resident.
As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested the landlord to answer all of her outstanding queries and to be issued a second parking bay for her household.
The landlord replied to the resident on 2 June 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained that it was due to a backlog in correspondence it was dealing with. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to respond within 20 working days. It also advised the resident that it would not consider elements that had already been considered in its previous complaint into the matter.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 23 June 2021. The landlord explained that its position on not providing a second parking bay to the resident and the contractual arrangements in place with its parking contractor remained unchanged from her previous complaint.
The landlord then informed the resident that it was currently in the process of arranging site visits to determine the placement of CCTV cameras and agree logistical details. Once those had been confirmed it would then write to all residents and provide an update. Therefore, it was not currently able to give the resident a definitive installation date.
In an email sent to this Service on 21 August 2021, the resident described the outstanding issued of the complaint as that she was unsure of the rules that she should be following regarding parking and was unclear on the number of visitor parking bays. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested £1,000 compensation to cover the costs of parking fines and for her household to be treated in the same way as the other residents of the scheme.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has deemed all aspects of the new complaint, other than the installation CCTV, as elements they had addressed in the previous complaint process and would make no further comment. Namely:
1. Its decision to enforce the one parking bay per property clause of the tenancy agreement.
2. Its appointment of a parking contractor to enforce the parking rules at the scheme.
3. Whether the resident was discriminated against by the new parking rules.
4. How many vehicles a resident could register for their parking bay.
5. What the landlord defined as a roadworthy vehicle.
The resident has stated that she still required clarification on how many visitor bays there are and that she was confused by the rules she needed to follow after opting out of having the landlord’s contractor administer the parking for her property.
The landlord noted that there had been some confusion as to whether there was one or two visitor bays within the scheme. It confirmed that there was one visitor bay and referred to the parking map to show where it was located. It also explained to which property the parking bay erroneously referred to as a second visitor bay was actually assigned to, and that it would be writing to all residents to make clear that there was one visitor bay.
Although this issue had been part of the resident’s original complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to address this element due to the confusion surrounding the number of visitor bays and to confirm that there was just one. The landlord has explained its position regarding the number of visitor bays and it does not need to do anything further in this regard. The landlord would not be in a position to allocate a second parking bay to the resident as all parking bays (except for the one visitor bay) are allocated to other properties, with one parking bay allocated to each property.
As part of its evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided its internal correspondence from June 2021 where it discussed the grounds the resident had given for escalating the complaint and what it would or would not consider responding to in its stage two complaint response.
Part of this discussion surrounded the resident’s confusion as to whether there would be two sets of parking rules; one for residents who had opted in for the changes to the parking arrangements and one for those who had opted out. The landlord quoted from a hand-delivered letter from the parking contractor sent to all households in the scheme that stated “If you own your bay and wish for your bay not to be monitored, please contact us and provide us with, your name, address, and evidence of ownership of your bay. Please be aware by choosing not to register your vehicle, your bay will not be protected therefore should another driver choose to utilise your bay without authorisation, we will be unable to help or assist”.
The landlord noted that residents could choose whether to have the contractor monitor their parking bay to ensure that there was no unauthorised parking, but the rules remained the same for all residents regardless of whether they opted in or out. As this policy was part of changes to parking rules that were considered in the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord came to the decision not to refer to this element in the stage two response as it had already been addressed through its complaints procedure and by the Ombudsman.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure from the landlord in the information it provided to the resident relating to car parking. At stage one of its complaints process it made clear the there was one visitor parking bay for the scheme. At stage two, it provided an update on the status of the installation of CCTV and stated it would contact all residents when it had a confirmed date for when work would commence.
Whilst it would have been useful for the landlord, as it had done with the visitor parking bay, to give further clarification that opting out of the contractor monitoring her parking bay made no changes to what parking rules were to be followed: the landlord was under no obligation to do so as this element had already been previously considered by both the landlord and this Service in response to the resident’s previous complaint.
The resident has provided this Service with photographs of the parking area taken between August 2021 and February 2022. She also passed on correspondence between her, the parking contractor and the landlord from 1 February 2022 where she described incidents of antisocial behaviour from her neighbours related to parking.
Before the issue of anti-social behaviour can be considered by this Service, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond through its complaints procedure. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding these issues if she wishes to pursue this matter further. This is in line with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman can only consider complaints that have exhausted a member’s (landlord’s) complaint procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the information it provided to the resident relating to car parking outside her property.

Reasons

The landlord provided clarification on the number of visitor bays in the scheme and on the progress of installing CCTV. All other elements of the complaint were issues that were part of the previous complaint considered by this Service and the landlord was under no obligation to respond any further. As explained above, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these issues further in line with our rules.