Habinteg Housing Association Limited (202113654)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113654

Habinteg Housing Association Limited

27 May 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 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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about other residents smoking outside the communal entrance.
   2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal parking.
   3. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She lives in a building of similar properties. There are communal car parking spaces within the estate.
3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in February 2021. She said her neighbours were parking their car next to hers even though the police had told them to stay away from her. She also said residents smoked at the communal door exits which was a nuisance. In response, the landlord said it had checked with the police and the neighbours could park where they wanted. It said it would send a letter to all residents and reiterate that they must move away from doors when smoking.
4. The resident raised a separate complaint to the landlord in March 2021. She said a neighbour had parked over two disabled spaces, and provided photographs. The landlord said it did not see an issue with how the car was parked but it did identify that the parking bays did not have any white lines which would help with increasing parking capacity. It said there was disabled signage for the spaces, but the resident had parked there without displaying a blue badge.
5. The resident escalated both complaints as she remained dissatisfied. She said she believed the landlord had displayed race bias by saying she had not displayed a blue badge. The landlord combined the complaints and provided one stage two response. It reiterated that it could not ask residents to park elsewhere unless they had breached their tenancy. It said it could not take action against the neighbours for where they smoked as it was only unlawful to smoke in covered areas. It said if it found a resident parking in the disabled bays without a badge, it would ask them to refrain. It did not accept that it had displayed victimisation or racial bias. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the landlord’s stage three complaints panel. The panel concluded that the landlord’s previous responses were appropriate.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said the landlord had victimised and discriminated against her race and disability. She said there should have been three panel members at stage three, but the landlord did not provide all their names. She said documentation was missing from the panel pack and she was dissatisfied the landlord combined her complaints. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. Throughout the resident’s correspondence with the landlord and this Service, she has explained that she believed the landlord has discriminated against her race and disability. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal matter which is better suited to the courts to decide. Nonetheless, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the concerns raised by the resident in relation to parking and smoking.

Smoking

8. The resident raised concerns that other residents would smoke outside the entrance and exit doors. In response the landlord said it asked residents not to smoke there but they had freedom of choice, and it could not enforce this unless it monitored the area. It also explained that as long as residents were not smoking in a covered area, it could not take any action as they were not breaching any terms of their tenancy or the law. Nevertheless, it sent a letter to all residents and asked them not to smoke near the doors so as not to cause a nuisance or obstruction.
9. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to remind residents of where they were supposed to smoke. No evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident reporting her concerns before she submitted a complaint. As such, the landlord took prompt action to mitigate the problem before it escalated and it was correct to highlight that residents were not breaching their tenancy agreements or the law if they were not smoking in covered areas.

Parking

10. The resident raised a complaint as she was dissatisfied that her neighbours had parked next to her car and said the police had confirmed the neighbours needed to stay away from her. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord liaised with the police who confirmed there were no active legal restrictions or warnings for the neighbours in place. The landlord concluded that it was unable to instruct the neighbours where to park and could not take any enforcement action against them unless they were found to be in breach of their tenancy agreement e.g. they had obstructed access or parking, or committed antisocial behaviour.
11. The landlord’s estate services and housing management policy confirms that it does not allocate parking spaces in communal car parks. Because of this, the landlord was correct to conclude that it was unable to instruct the neighbours where to park. Without evidence to show the neighbours should have kept their distance from the resident or had breached their tenancy agreement in relation to how they were parking, the landlord would not be expected to take any further action in response to the resident’s concerns. Therefore, its response to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.
12. In her formal complaints the resident raised concerns that the landlord had said she had the option to move her car to another space, as a solution to the issue of the neighbours parking next to her, despite knowing she is disabled. The landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns about this matter and concluded that its suggestion was a justifiable solution to the resident’s dilemma and was by no means a request that the resident did this. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s comments around the resident moving her car were not particularly helpful given that the resident has a disability. However, this Service is satisfied that the landlord addressed the resident’s reports about the neighbour parking next to her car adequately, as outlined above, and no service failures have been identified in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
13. The resident also raised concerns about a neighbour parking over two disabled spaces. In response the landlord considered the photographs submitted by the resident and concluded that it did not see an issue with how the car was parked, but it did identify that the parking bays did not have any white lines which would help with increasing parking capacity. It confirmed that this was something it was looking at in consultation with residents. It is acknowledged that the photograph submitted by the resident appears to show that the car had been parked in such a way as to prevent a third car from parking in the disabled bays. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident reported that this was an ongoing issue, and therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to raise the matter with the neighbour at this time. The landlord also sought to address the issue by confirming that it was considering demarcating the parking spaces, thereby encouraging residents to park considerately.
14. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had said she had parked in the disabled bay without displaying a blue badge. She said it was not a requirement of her tenancy agreement. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord previously informed the resident that there was a requirement to display a blue badge, and so it is understandable that the resident queried this with the landlord. In response the landlord said it would consider changing the signage to make the requirement to display a blue badge clearer. The landlord has therefore taken reasonable steps to clarify its position on the matter, and no evidence has been provided to show that the resident has suffered a detriment as a result of the landlord’s handling of the matter.
15. The resident also raised concerns that she was treated differently when the landlord photographed her car and informed her that she had not displayed a blue badge, as other cars parked in the disabled bay at the same time did not have a blue badge displayed. In response the landlord said that it was reasonable for it to seek evidence that residents were entitled to park in the disabled bays and its actions in respect of enforcement were not solely directed at any one party. In support of its position, the landlord has provided this Service with a recent email from the tenant representative stating that a letter was sent out to all residents last year about displaying blue badges in the disabled bays.
16. While this has been noted, no evidence has been provided to confirm that this letter was sent to the residents concerned at the time the landlord raised the matter with the resident, or that any other steps were taken to ensure that the other residents were entitled to park in the disabled bays on that occasion. Therefore, the landlord has not been able to adequately demonstrate that it treated the resident fairly in this regard.
17. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which says that awards of £50 to £250 may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As outlined above, this investigation cannot make a finding on whether the landlord has discriminated against the resident, and the compensation award is in recognition of the distress caused by the landlord not being able to demonstrate that it treated the resident fairly on this occasion.

Complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says that the landlord will seek to resolve complaints at the first point of contact and if the resident remains dissatisfied, it will escalate to stage one. It will issue its stage one and two complaint response within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the landlord will refer the matter to its stage three complaint panel. The complaint panel will comprise the landlord’s board member, the chief executive officer, and the tenant representative.
19. The resident raised two separate complaints to the landlord. The first was about neighbours parking directly next to her, and residents smoking at the entrance doors. The other complaint was about how another resident had parked in the disabled spaces. The landlord advised the resident in its stage two response that it had considered all the complaints she had made since 19 February 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied with its decision.
20. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to combine the two complaints as they related to similar issues (parking) and were raised within a few weeks of each other. Nevertheless, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have advised the resident before it issued its stage two response that it was going to combine the complaints in order to manage the resident’s expectations. However, this would not constitute a service failure as the landlord still responded within its target response timeframe for stage two complaints and there is no evidence to show that the landlord’s complaint handling caused any detriment to the resident.
21. In the resident’s stage three complaint she asked the landlord to provide the names of the complaint panel members. The landlord did not respond to this question. Although no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show there was any requirement for the landlord to provide this information, it would have been good practice to have at least acknowledged the resident’s request and explained why this information would not be provided. Nevertheless, this would not be considered a service failure, as the landlord was not required to provide this information, and no evidence has been provided to show its failure to do so caused any detriment to the resident.   
22. The resident has complained that documentation was missing from the panel pack and that two chronologies instead of one should have been provided, as she had raised two separate complaints with the landlord. In response, the landlord clarified what information was missing and then added this to the panel pack. It confirmed it would only be providing one chronology as it had combined all complaints at stage two and invited the resident to provide a statement to the panel setting out why she disagreed with this approach. The landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s concerns as it ensured the missing information was included in the panel pack, provided a reasonable explanation as to why it would not be providing two chronologies, and ensured the resident was able to make the panel aware of her concerns. Accordingly, there were no service failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal parking.
24. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about smoking outside the communal entrance.
25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

26. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the request to display a blue badge. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this report.