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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202206428)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206428

Clarion Housing Association Limited

8 February 2024


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. Concerns about not being consulted prior to introducing alternative parking enforcement on the estate.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant and lives in a, second-floor flat owned by the landlord. She lives with her husband, and both parties are registered disabled. The landlord has provided no information to this Service to demonstrate it has any vulnerabilities recorded for the household. She is represented by her son in bringing the complaint. For convenience, the son and the resident are referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2021. She said that the landlord had not consulted residents prior to changing its parking contractor on 26 July 2021. She was affected by having no grace period for picking up, dropping off, and loading and unloading. Her family were having to park in the designated spaces, leaving her to walk further to her home with mobility issues. She stated it had breached the terms of her tenancy agreement by failing to consult residents and requested it revert to previous parking arrangements to allow for a proper consultation. She also said it had breached the Equality Act 2010 by failing to make reasonable adjustments for disabled residents.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 16 August 2021, the landlord said it had hand delivered a letter to all residents in April 2021 which explained the changes and how residents should proceed. It confirmed it would now allow a 15-minute grace period for picking up and dropping off passengers, but it would not be reverting to its previous contractor and did not intend to consult residents. It did not identify a service failure but apologised and offered £50 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 23 August 2021. She included a copy of a letter sent to her by the landlord on 12 August 2021, advising that she was missed from the distribution list for the communications in April 2021. She was unhappy because the landlord had not explained why it did not consult residents.
  5. In its stage 2 decision on 9 December 2021, the landlord apologised for the length of time taken to respond. It reiterated that there was now a 15-minute grace period but said it would improve signage in the area to make this clearer. It said it would monitor the parking of its contractors in the area to ensure consistency. It agreed that she did not receive its letter in April 2021. It also explained why it did not consult residents about the changes. It offered £150 compensation, £100 for its delayed response and £50 for the resident not receiving the letter in April 2021.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response and brought her complaint to this Service on 29 June 2022. She was unhappy with its response to the lack of consultation about changes to the parking contractor and methods of parking enforcement. She was seeking for it to immediately withdraw use of CCTV across the estate and then consult about the use of it, improve signage to incorporate the grace period and enforce parking against its own staff and contractors.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her general complaint, the resident has raised concerns about privacy relating to the use of CCTV and failed blackout technology for private dwellings. This Service spoke to the resident on 6 February 2024, and alongside evidence provided by the landlord, she confirmed that this matter had been dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office. As such, this matter has not formed part of this investigation.

Concerns about not being consulted prior to introducing alternative parking enforcement on the estate.

  1. In April 2021, the landlord made residents aware of changes to its parking contractor and associated changes by hand-delivering letters. Due to an administrative error, the resident did not receive the letter about this change, and this was not identified until 12 August 2021. It would have been reasonable for it to keep records of which properties had received letters and it could then have identified that she had been missed from these communications more quickly, allowing it to rectify the error and offering her the chance to discuss her concerns.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had not received its letter in April 2021. It offered £50 compensation for its failure to provide her with a copy of the letter at the time. This amount is in line with its compensation policy which awards £50 per quarter per failure for service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.
  3. Prior to changing contractors in June 2021, the landlord did not offer any consultation period to residents. The resident felt that this was a breach of her tenancy agreement which includes a “right to be consulted” clause. This provides her with the right to be consulted before any changes are made to housing policies or the way her home is managed. The changes in this case were not subject to this as there was no change to either and her tenancy agreement does not include the provision of parking as a responsibility of the landlord.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that there was no consultation in relation to parking enforcement because this was already in place under its existing policy and while it changed from physical patrols to CCTV, the parameters for enforcement did not change. Its neighbourhood management policy states it can appoint a reputable company to operate a parking scheme, or parking maintenance. In this case, the landlord has acted reasonably and in line with its own policies.
  5. When the landlord’s contractor began the CCTV enforcement, there was no grace period for vehicles to stop for the purposes of dropping off and picking up passengers or loading and unloading. Any vehicle that stopped would be subject to receiving a parking charge notice from the contractor, regardless of the reason for stopping.
  6. The resident raised this issue as part of her complaint as she felt her vulnerabilities had not been considered. It acknowledged this and arranged for the implementation of a 15-minute grace period with its contractor to ensure that residents were able to stop without fear of receiving a parking charge notice. This demonstrated a positive consideration of the resident’s concerns by the landlord, and its willingness to ensure that the needs of vulnerable residents were considered going forward.
  7. As part of her stage 2 escalation, the resident stated the landlord’s contractors had been parking in contravention of the parking restrictions but were not receiving the same enforcement as residents. In its response, it said it would monitor its contractors parking in the area as they should be subject to the same rules as residents. This was a reasonable response, and this Service would expect the landlord to ensure a fair approach is applied to both residents and contractors.
  8. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord’s offer of compensation for failing to deliver the notification letter was fair and shows it has taken steps to put things right. This is also the case for the implementation of the 15-minute grace period once it considered the impact of the issue on its vulnerable residents.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints would be resolved within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints would be resolved within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 July 2021. It acknowledged this on 30 July 2021 and responded on 16 August 2021, 15 working days later. This response time was not compliant with it its own complaints policy (current at the time) as outlined above. It offered £50 compensation for the delays in responding which was in line with its compensation policy.
  3. The complaint was escalated on 23 August 2021 as the resident felt the response from the landlord was incomplete. She chased it on 10 October 2021 as she had received no response. It acknowledged the complaint on 15 October 2021 and replied with an apology for delays on 27 October 2021. It started an internal review on the same day to investigate why her complaint was not logged correctly, this demonstrated a willingness to learn from the delays in this case.
  4. The resident chased a response from the landlord again on 18 November 2021 It advised her that its response would be delayed on 25 November 2021, with an estimated completion date of 9 December 2021. It issued its stage 2 response on 9 December, 77 working days after the complaint had been escalated. The length of time taken to respond was not compliant with its own policy, however, it apologised for the delay in responding and explained why it had happened. It put measures in place to avoid it happening again which demonstrated learning. It offered compensation of £100 for its delayed complaint response which was fair and in line with its compensation policy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the resident’s complaint about:
    1. Its handling of her concerns about not being consulted prior to introducing alternative parking enforcement on the estate.
    2. Its handling of the associated formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord continues to monitor parking of its contractors on the resident’s estate to ensure a consistent approach to parking enforcement for both residents and contractors.