Clarion Housing Association Limited (202107098)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107098

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
  2. request to swap parking spaces.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident’s property is part of a large estate, which a managing agent oversees on behalf of the landlord. The managing agent has a contract with a parking enforcement contractor (PCM). The resident is the leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder of her property. The lease that she holds with the landlord specifies that she has the right to park one private motor vehicle on the parking space shown on the attached plan (or such other space as the landlord may reasonably designate from time to time).

3.     According to the landlord’s records, on 11 April 2021 the resident reported that she asked her neighbour to wash his car away from his parking bay next to hers because it was dirtying her car (the resident had historically reported similar issues to the landlord). The resident reported that her neighbour then threatened her that someone would damage her car, which she later found scratches on.

4.     The landlord’s notes say it created an action plan on 23 April 2021, in which it detailed that the resident would keep an incident diary and it would investigate the possibility of changing her parking bay.

5.     The landlord internal records for 26 April 2021 state that the resident said the police only advised her to change her parking bay and she insisted that the landlord arrange this. The landlord confirmed that it reminded the resident that her parking bay was allocated to her as part of her lease agreement and it may not be easy to change it as it may require leasehold terms alteration, which would cost the resident in legal fees. It subsequently made internal queries about changing the resident’s parking bay. 

6.     The resident provided the landlord with her legal representative’s details on 30 April 2021, and the landlord advised her that the legal representative would need to approach it to discuss amending the lease.

7.     On 13 May 2021 the resident sent the landlord an email asking it not to write to the neighbour because she was concerned it would make matters worse. She confirmed she wished to change her parking bay or for the landlord to authorise her visitor permits so she could park in a visitor bay instead.

8.     The landlord’s internal records for 19 May 2021 state that there were no available parking spaces for the resident to swap with and the resident informed it that the parking company agreed that she could park in visitors’ bays if the landlord provided permission. It informed the resident on 24 May 2021 that it would write to the property manager to obtain permission, and internally advised that the resident had been provided with a temporary parking space while the ASB was investigated.

9.     The landlord spoke with the resident on 3 June 2021 and noted that she confirmed that nobody, including her, witnessed her neighbour damage her car but she believed he was responsible due to the circumstances. The landlord said that it told the resident that it would be unreasonable for it to accuse the neighbour of damage to her vehicle without any evidence and it could not instruct the neighbour to stop standing in her parking bay because this would not be considered antisocial behaviour. It also noted that it told the resident it would close the ASB case.

10. On 4 June 2021 the resident asked to raise a complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her reports because the landlord had not provided her with somewhere else to park while it investigated the ASB, as it advised her it would. Therefore, the resident had been paying for visitor permits to park her car away from the neighbour’s space. The resident was also unhappy with the advice given and conduct by the staff member who called her on 3 June 2021 to close the case.  The landlord replied that it would investigate the issue and if the resident remained unhappy, following its initial attempt to resolve the issue, she may log a formal complaint.

11. Following further contact from the resident, in which she reiterated that she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour, the landlord wrote to the PCM company and property manager confirming it did not object to the resident requesting a new parking bay.

12. On 25 June 2021 the resident reiterated her request to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She asked the landlord to reimburse her the £44 she paid to park in visitor bays since 11 April 2021. The resident expressed the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to chasing the matter. On the same day the landlord confirmed it raised a complaint and would contact the resident within ten working days.

13. The landlord asked the PCM company on 9 July 2021 to allow the resident to park in a visitor’s bay while it resolved ASB problems affecting her parking bay, advising it could take months to investigate. However, because the PCM company’s client was the property manager, the landlord had to go through them. On 12 July 2021 the PCM company provided a code to enable the resident to park in an estate visitor bay for 30 days.

14. According to the landlord’s records, on 13 July 2021, it spoke with the resident and explained that the police needed to update her, and the landlord, if it was established that the neighbour was responsible for scratching her car.

15. On 14 July 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord to pursue a response to the resident’s complaint.

16. In a call with the resident on 19 July 2021, the landlord offered to reimburse her the £44 she paid to park in visitors’ bays, plus £50 compensation. It confirmed that the resident did not want it to write to her neighbour, and she wanted her parking bay changed.

17. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 20 July 2021, it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. The landlord reiterated that the parking bay was attached to the resident’s lease and moving the bay permanently may affect any plans she may one day have to sell her home. It also confirmed that there were no alternative parking bays to offer the resident as they were all allocated.

18. The landlord explained that it aimed to resolve the ASB rather than moving the resident’s parking bay. It noted that in its call with the resident on 19 July 2021 she was worried that it trying to resolve ASB might make it worse, and she would not feel safe if it told her to use her allocated parking space. The landlord confirmed it would pass these details to its ASB team, which would be in touch with the resident that week. It advised the resident that if she was not satisfied with the way it handled the ASB issue then she could complain about this.

19. Finally, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation, broken down as: £50 for its delay in agreeing that the resident could use one of the visitor bays and £50 for the delay in it responding to the complaint.

20. The landlord’s internal notes advised on 3 August 2021 that it had spoken to the resident, who was concerned that the ASB team had not contacted her, and her visitor’s bay parking pass expired on 12 August 2021. Following this call, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would escalate her complaint, confirming that she did not feel £100 compensation was enough due to her having to pursue her queries with the landlord, property manager, and PCM company.

21. On 10 August 2021 the resident contacted the property manager regarding her visitor’s bay parking pass and explained her circumstances. The property manager replied that the information provided was not sufficient to grant an extension for the visitors’ bay pass. It advised that it needed confirmation from the police and landlord and details of the progress with the ASB or criminal damage investigation and confirmation that the resident was at risk parking within her own bay. Considering the time passed and that the resident consulted with the police and landlord, the property manager said that the resident should be able to park within her regular bay and monitor the situation for improvements and report her findings back to the police or landlord.

22. The property manager also contacted the landlord to ask for further details and how much longer it needed to complete its investigation. The landlord advised that it was trying to establish what action it had taken against the alleged perpetrator and, due to delays on the landlord’s side, the property manager extended the resident’s visitor’s bay pass until 26 August 2021. It subsequently informed the resident of this but explained that that the estate visitor car parking spaces were for the use of all visitors to the estate and could not be allocated to individuals as a second or new parking space. It also confirmed there were no vacant resident bays on the estate; and if the landlord wished to relocate the resident to another bay that it owned, this should provide an alternative solution.

23. The resident continued to express her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues and reiterated that she was not prepared to park next to her neighbour’s car, considering the circumstances.

24. On 12 August 2021 the landlord spoke with the resident and told her that there was no availability to change the bay because the bays on site were purchased and formed part of the leasehold agreement. It noted that it told her a warning letter had been sent to the neighbour to warn them of the issues raised and that action could be taken if the behaviour continued. It noted that it told her that if she felt threatened, she should contact the police.

25. In emails to the landlord between 11 and 13 August 2021, the resident advised that she had spoken with a member of staff who suggested that the landlord write to all residents in the block, advising that car washing was not allowed in the car park. The resident confirmed that she agreed with this suggestion but reiterated that she did not feel safe parking in her original bay next to the neighbour’s. She said she would ask the property manager to make an exception to allow her to park in visitor bays until a new parking space became available and asked the landlord to arrange for a further extension for her parking bay pass.

26. On 13 August 2021, the property manager extended the resident’s parking exemption until 26 August 2021.

27. The resident reiterated her concerns to the landlord via social media on 20 August 2021. She also said a member of the landlord’s staff told her they had wrote to the neighbour and asked for further information on this and reiterated her disaffection with the landlord’s compensation offer.

28. The landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s recent emails on 23 August 2021 and that the complaint would be reviewed at the next stage of its procedure.

29. On 3 September 2021 the resident forwarded the landlord an email from the police confirming that on 11 April 2021 the resident reported criminal damage to her car, and it asked if the landlord could assign the resident an alternative parking spot to negate any further incidents. In further emails to the landlord, she advised that she also sought £450 compensation and asked it to reimburse her for the cost of parking in visitor bays since 27 August 2021.

30. On 6 September 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay in it contacting her regarding her complaint escalation and explained it was experiencing a much higher volume of enquiries than usual. The landlord confirmed that it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.

31. According to the landlord’s records, it spoke with the neighbour on 22 September 2021, who denied damaging the resident’s car and said he now took his car to a car wash due to issues with the resident. The landlord advised him to stay as far away from the resident as reasonably possible. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm that it was unable to take further action because it was unable to establish who damaged the resident’s car or confirm that the neighbour deliberately caused the damage. It also advised that it was unable to assist the resident with the reallocation of her parking bay/provision of an alternative parking arrangement and encouraged the resident to report any further problems with ASB.

32. In the landlord’s final complaint response, dated 27 September 2021, it apologised for the delay in it responding to the resident’s request for a stage two complaint. It said that it was not co-ordinated in its responses to the resident, was unable to clarify what investigations it did into the threat made by the neighbour and could not see that it discussed it with him (although it noted that on 14 May 2021 the resident asked that it did not contact her neighbour as this may inflame the situation). The landlord confirmed it did not send a block letter asking everyone to stop washing their cars in the parking bays until 20 August 2021. It apologised that the resident was unhappy with its conversation with her in June 2021 whereby it closed the ASB case; however, it concluded that it was appropriate to close the case, considering that there had been no further reports of anything it considered to be ASB since the first incident reported in April 2021. It confirmed there were no witnesses or evidence to support the report in April 2021, meaning that it did not have enough evidence to take legal action regarding the neighbour’s lease. The landlord acknowledged that it could have advised the resident this outcome and taken the appropriate action some months beforehand.

33. The landlord reiterated that it was unable to allocate the resident a new bay because:

  1. there were no unallocated bays and most properties on the estate, including the resident’s, had car parking spaces allocated to them which was set out in the leases. If there were spare bays, it would need to complete a deed of variation which would be expensive due to significant legal fees and the resident would have to cover these costs
  2. the visitor bays are marked as such and are grouped together, making it not practical to change the resident’s bay to one of the visitor bays and vice versa.
  3. It was preferable for it to resolve any ASB. It asked the resident to report any incidents of ASB and confirmed it would investigate.

34. In recognition of the service failures it identified, and considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord revised its compensation offer to £276. This consisted of the £100 offered in its stage one response; £50 for the delay in it acknowledging and responding to the stage two complaint; £50 for the time taken to investigate ASB; £44 reimbursement of visitor bay parking (pre complaint) and £32 reimbursement of visitor bay parking fees from 27 August to 27 September 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies:

35. Reports and disputes around parking and other neighbourhood issues are not generally considered to be ASB under the landlord’s ASB policy. However, the policy says that the landlord considers threats and damage to property as harassment, which is a form of ASB.  The policy explains that where ASB is the result of criminal activity, the landlord expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police, which will take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so. Where required, it will work collaboratively with the police and local authorities to support and encourage their role. The landlord will not generally lead on such incidents but will use the evidence police provide (such as details of calls or a criminal conviction) together with evidence it may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.

36. The landlord’s compensation policy details categories of compensation of between £50 to £250, £250 to £700 and £700 and above. The policy says that compensation will be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on various factors including whether the landlord was responsible for causing the problem, and the length of time it took to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

37. The resident asked the landlord not to write to her neighbour regarding the ASB until July 2021 at the earliest. Therefore, considering that the resident did not report any further incidents, the lack of evidence that the neighbour had damaged the resident’s car and that the police had not taken any action, there were limited actions that the landlord could take to resolve the matter. The evidence also demonstrates that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding this on 3 June 2021 and after it eventually spoke with the neighbour on 22 September 2021, in line with its ASB policy.

38. However, the landlord misadvised the resident on 12 August 2021 that it had written to the neighbour. It also acknowledged that it did not write to all residents in the estate regarding washing their cars in the carpark until August 2021, as it had previously suggested and the resident agreed to, and it has not provided this Service with a copy of any letter sent to residents in the estate. Finally, as acknowledged by the landlord in its final response to the complaint, it was not as co-ordinated with its responses to the resident as it could have been, and it was unclear on exactly what actions it had taken. This is demonstrated in the landlord’s internal correspondence, and in correspondence with the property manager’s organisation when the property management company asked for an update on the ASB investigation.

39. Given these service failures, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its mistakes and compensate the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord has acknowledged its mistakes and offered the resident compensation, including £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken for it to investigate the ASB. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) recommends compensation amounts of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident but was of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.

40. While the shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB case may have caused some distress and inconvenience on the resident, it did not have any significant impact on the outcome of the investigation: that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the landlord taking any further action against the neighbour for ASB at the time. Considering the above, the landlord’s compensation offer of £50 was reasonable and it was not required to do anything further regarding this issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to swap parking spaces.

41. The landlord has advised the resident’s parking space is allocated to her as part of her lease and that there are no other suitable parking bays that the resident could swap with. A lease is a legal agreement between the landlord and the resident, and this Service does not have the power to order either party to alter this agreement or accept an alteration. Therefore, we could not order the landlord to give the resident an alternative parking pay as a resolution to her complaint. There is a legal process for making alterations to the lease and the landlord correctly advised the resident of this in response to her request for an alternative parking pay. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

42. However, the landlord has considered the resident’s request and provided a reasonable explanation regarding why could not assign the resident another parking space, in line with the lease, and there is no evidence to suggest that there were any other suitable parking options for her within the estate. The landlord has also acknowledged the delay in it allowing the resident to park in the visitors’ bay while it investigated the ASB. The landlord compensated the resident for any distress and inconvenience caused by this error and reimbursed the resident for any expenses she incurred in paying to park in the visitors’ bays.

43. The redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgement of its failures, and compensation of £50) were in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, as detailed above. It was in line with one of this Service’s dispute resolution principles (‘be fair’) for the landlord to have reimbursed the resident the expenses she incurred, considering the delay in it arranging for her to park in the visitors’ parking bay while it investigated the ASB. Therefore, the redress offered by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

44. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

  1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
  2. request to swap parking spaces.

Reasons

45. There were some service failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, specifically that it was not co-ordinated with its responses to the resident as it could have been, it was unclear on exactly what actions it had taken, it failed to evidence that it had written to all residents in the estate about car washing, and it incorrectly advised that it had wrote to the neighbour. It also delayed in allowing the resident to park in a visitor’s bay free of charge, while it investigated the ASB. Given the distress and inconvenience that the service failures caused the resident, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation and reimburse the resident for any costs she incurred in using visitor parking bays. The landlord did do this, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.