Clarion Housing Association Limited (202124142)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124142

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 October 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

The complaint is about the information provided by the landlord in relation to parking at the resident’s property.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a first-floor flat within a block. The tenancy commenced in 2015.
The resident complained in 2015 that the landlord had not informed her that the estate was a car-free development. The landlord’s response disputed this. In the proceeding years, the landlord incorrectly issued the resident with a parking permit that allowed her to park on the estate.
In July 2021 the landlord informed residents in writing that it had issued parking permits to some of its tenants in error. It stated that a Section 106 planning agreement from 1998 did not permit residents whose tenancy commenced after this date to park on the estate. It added that it had agreed with the local authority that permits would remain valid until their expiration on 31 March 2022 and advised residents to seek alternative parking arrangements.
In response the resident advised that she had accepted the flat based on the fact it had parking and that the landlord had told her she would be able to park on the estate. She added that she would be parking there as usual and stated that the landlord’s letter did not apply to her. The landlord repeated the contents of its July 2021 letter and added that there was no appeals process as the Section 106 was a legal agreement controlled by the local authority.
On 22 February 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. In summary, she said that when she moved into the property, she was told by the landlord that she could park in the bays outside and that she accepted the property on this basis. She was subsequently informed by the landlord that she needed a permit which she then paid for. She added that this situation had been going on since 2016 and that the landlord had provided lots of conflicting information. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted an explanation for the conflicting information, compensation for purchasing a permit and either approval to park outside her property or to be moved.
On 7 March 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
1. The property did not come with guaranteed parking and there was nothing in the tenancy agreement regarding this.
2. There was no evidence to confirm that she was told that parking was available at the property.
3. It acknowledged that it had issued parking permits in error, but they would be honoured until 31 March 2022.
4. That due to the Section 106 agreement with the local authority, residents whose tenancy commenced after February 1998 were not permitted to park on the estate.
5. The resident could request to rent a parking space from the landlord or a parking space or garage directly with the local authority.
6. If she wanted to move, she could look to do a mutual exchange or reapply to the local authority.
7. It apologised and offered £200 compensation (that would be offset against arrears owed), for her repeatedly chasing for information, misdirection, lack of ownership being taken, and inconvenience caused.
In the resident’s escalation request she said that she was told by many different staff members that because of the landlord’s mistakes, she would be able to park in the bays. She added that nobody was being held accountable for the incorrect information she was provided and that it was not offering any help or support to her. Further, she did not want the compensation awarded to be applied to her rent account.
The landlord issued its final response on 7 April 2022. It repeated its stage 1 response. In addition, it said:
1. That it could see no evidence that information was provided prior to her sign-up that confirmed access to a parking space.
2. That she was advised in historical complaint responses that parking was not available at her property.
3. It had agreed to contact other leaseholders on the estate to ask if they would allow the resident to use any bay they own, that was not in use.
4. It had previously agreed to discuss her options to move but there were no notes that this took place.
5. That the team who had issued the parking permits in error, were unaware of the planning agreement.
6. It had explored parking spaces with another housing association, but none were available.
7. The resident could look online or contact the local authority for alternative parking.
8. It offered a further £100 compensation that would be offset against any arrears owed.
In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said that she was unhappy that there was no solution to the problem. She added that the compensation would not help her buy or rent a parking permit as the landlord had applied it to her rent account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The landlord has explained that the reason parking is not allowed outside the resident’s property is because of a section 106 agreement that prohibits new Clarion tenants (after 19 February 1998) from keeping a vehicle on the estate. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to allow the resident to park at the property, as this is a legally binding agreement between the landlord and the local authority. Any concerns about this would need to be discussed with the local authority in the first instance.
The Ombudsman will not be able to look at the information given to the resident when she accepted the tenancy in 2015 as this was over seven years ago. This investigation will therefore focus on the information the landlord has provided the resident about this situation, and how it has dealt with her concerns from July 2021, approximately 7 months before the resident’s formal complaint, up to the landlord’s final response on 7 April 2022.

The information provided by the landlord in relation to parking at the resident’s property.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The landlord’s initial letter in July 2021 explained to all tenants of the block that it had issued permits in error. It stated that due to a planning agreement in 1998 with the local authority, tenants of the block who moved in after this date were not permitted to park on the estate. Further, it confirmed that an agreement had been made with the local authority that would allow tenants to use the parking permit up until the end of March 2022 and that residents would need to seek alternative parking arrangements.
The resident challenged this. She stated that she had accepted the flat on the basis that she could park on the estate and that the landlord had confirmed this. Further, she stated that she did not think the letter applied to her. The landlord responded promptly via email to her concerns. It reiterated its position and provided clear information to the resident on why she would no longer be able to park on the estate. In addition, the information on timescales regarding the expiration of the permit was clear.
However, its response could have been more sympathetic to the resident’s situation. Moreover, it missed an opportunity at an early stage to provide information and advice on how she could find alternative parking arrangements before the permit expired. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. Given the circumstances and the obvious mistrust the resident was feeling, it would have also been helpful for the landlord to evidence its position by providing the resident with a copy of the Section 106 agreement. In view of this, a recommendation is made below.
Both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses were detailed. Again, the responses set out the landlord’s position and the information provided was clear and easy to understand. Further, its response showed that it had interrogated its records, where it identified various historical failings. The landlord acted fairly by explaining these failings and apologising for them. The landlord also provided appropriate information and advice to the resident on where she could find alternative parking. This was a satisfactory approach for the landlord to take.
In the resident’s complaint she wanted compensation for purchasing a permit. While the landlord did not specifically address this request in its formal responses, the landlord was not obliged to offer a reimbursement for the cost of the permit, given the arrangements it had made with the local authority for residents to use the location for parking until 31 March 2022. Furthermore, it acknowledged that the permits had been issued in error and informed the resident as early as July 2021 that she would need to find alternative parking arrangements after this date.
The landlord’s final response stated that it had agreed to contact other leaseholders on the estate to ascertain if the resident could use any bay, they owned that was available. The landlord’s internal records show that it has since investigated this option but is unable to pursue this further as it would breach the local authority Section 106 agreement. However, it is unclear if it has updated the resident on its findings. A recommendation is made below in respect of this.
The final response also stated that it had previously agreed to discuss the resident’s options to move but this had not happened. Although this Service acknowledges that the landlord provided advice on moving in its stage 1 response, it is unclear if the landlord has discussed with the resident, all the housing options available to her. In light of this, a recommendation is made below.
While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident by this situation, it was reasonable, for the landlord to inform her that it would be unable to offer her a parking space due to its legal obligations. It was also appropriate, given its previous failings to try and support her in finding alternative parking arrangements.
This Service recognises that the landlord offered a total of £300 compensation throughout the complaints process. Its formal responses indicated that the compensation awarded was for failings that happened before July 2021. These included the resident repeatedly having to chase for information, misdirection, lack of ownership being taken, and inconvenience caused. There is no evidence of these failings during the period between July 2021 to the landlord’s final response on 7 April 2022. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not assessed whether the compensation awarded was fair in the circumstances. In view of this, this Service has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the information provided to the resident.
Finally, the landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation and discretionary compensation payments will be used to offset rent or other arrears. The landlord therefore acted in line with its policy when it offset its compensation award against the resident’s arrears.
However, the blanket implementation of such a policy risks a resident who has been awarded compensation for direct financial loss or out-of-pocket expenses not directly receiving that sum to settle their financial outlay. Landlords should consider the impact such a policy may have on an individual resident or whether the sum to be offset is in dispute. In this case, the amount was not awarded for financial loss, however, the landlord should consider reviewing this ‘blanket’ policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the information provided by the landlord in relation to parking at the resident’s property.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provide a copy of the Section 106 agreement to the resident or advise her on how to obtain a copy.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ‘blanket’ policy for offsetting compensation payments.
It is recommended that the landlord inform the resident of its findings in respect of its investigation into the use of another leaseholder’s bay.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss her options for moving.