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

Hyde Housing Association Limited (202219192)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219192

Hyde Housing Association Limited

10 November 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. the resident’s concerns about the provision of parking control; and
    2. the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord for a two-bedroom flat within a complex.
  2. The car park at the property is run by a parking enforcement company. Residents must apply for a parking permit at their own cost to use the car park. It is not something that is included in the landlord’s service charge to its residents.
  3. On 14 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord because she had been informed by another resident that the contract for the property’s parking enforcement company was ending on 31 May 2021. The landlord responded on the same day and explained it was working with both the former company and the new one to ensure a smooth transition for residents. It confirmed that it had planned a three-month grace period to ensure residents were not ticketed in error during the transition.
  4. On 17 May 2021, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy that she and other residents had not been informed of the change. The landlord responded on 19 May 2021 to say it had conducted a survey of residents at the complex about the change, and received feedback. On 20 May 2021, the resident requested a copy of the survey, as she said that she, and other residents she had spoken to had not received it.
  5. On 12 July 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord because the handover to the new parking enforcement company had been delayed. She also reiterated that residents had not been informed of the planned change, no consultation had taken place, and no one at her estate had received a survey.
  6. On 17 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It upheld her complaint, and explained that the new company could have given all residents information on the new parking controls, terms and conditions, and how to apply for a new permit with them. It offered the resident £100 in compensation for the lack of communication from the new company, and for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter. It also offered £50 for the delay in providing its stage 1 response.
  7. Additionally, the landlord told the resident it had asked the new company to install signs at all parking sites and to contact residents to introduce itself and provide instructions on how to apply for new permits. It said it would deliver all correspondence to residents by hand going forward to ensure no communications could be missed.
  8. On 19 September 2021, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She reiterated that the handover to the new parking enforcement company had been delayed, residents had not been notified of the changes, and no consultation had taken place. She also said that she had called the landlord’s customer services team on 9, 12, 16, and 24 July and been promised a call back within 24 hours each time. She did not receive a call back as promised, and told the landlord that she wanted the individual staff member held accountable.
  9. On 30 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident. It confirmed the new car parking enforcement company had put signage in place, and patrols had started to stop unauthorised vehicles blocking parking for residents. It also said letters had been delivered to all residents as promised in its stage 1 response, and confirmed that all residents would receive information about the new permit system within the next few days.
  10. The landlord also apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response, and lack of communication to residents. It increased its original compensation offer from £150 to £200, and confirmed that all residents had been written to on 29 November 2021 with instructions on how to apply for new permits. Lastly, the landlord confirmed that its contract with the new company would be fully implemented by 15 December 2021.
  11. On 23 November 2022, the resident brought her complaint to our service. She said that the landlord had failed to inform residents about the change in parking enforcement company, and that no consultation with residents had taken place. She also stated not all residents had received information on the new parking scheme until 17 February 2022, a day before the new scheme went live.
  12. Additionally, the resident said the landlord had not dealt with her complaint in line with its own complaint policy and had tried to refer her correspondence to the incoming parking provider to deal with. She also stated that the landlord had confirmed the new parking system would go live on 13 December 2021, but it did not start until 18 February 2022. She said this meant no action was being taken against residents who were breaching parking regulations between 31 May 2021 and 18 February 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. Since bringing her complaint to our service, the resident has mentioned ongoing issues with virtual permits, and parking tickets being incorrectly issued to residents. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about this. However, this is not something we can consider as part of this complaint.
  2. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concerns matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. As this part of the complaint relates to actions taken by a car parking enforcement company, this is outside of our jurisdiction.

Provision of parking control

  1. The landlord told the resident that prior to the change in its parking enforcement provider, it had conducted a survey with residents in areas at the block where parking enforcement existed, and received feedback from 350 residents overall. The resident contested this, as some of the residents she had spoken to told her they had not received any survey. She asked for evidence of the survey and communication sent to the residents, which the landlord did not provide. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared this in support of its assertion, and to assure the resident that it had acted in in accordance with the feedback presented.
  2. It is of concern that the landlord did not provide this Service or the resident with any information to show that a survey had taken place. This indicates that the landlord’s record-keeping was insufficient and means it was unclear as to how residents were given an opportunity to make their views known. The resident has said that no consultation took place, however, the car park was not included in the landlord’s service charge to residents, and therefore the landlord was under no obligation to consult with residents before changing its parking enforcement company, although it claims to have done so. While it remains unclear how the survey was conducted, the landlord has not acted unreasonably in its decision to change provider.
  3. In its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord agreed that information about how the new parking provision would work should have been given to residents sooner than it was. It also explained to the resident that the previous parking enforcement company had been given a 6 months’ notice period for termination, but had taken its parking regulation signs down 5 months earlier than anticipated, meaning the landlord and the new provider were left in a difficult situation, as the previous parking management company had effectively ceased regulating the car park, and the new one was not due to start for another five months. This meant that there was no parking regulation in place for a significant period of time, causing understandable concern for the resident about the car park being misused. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is no information available that shows the resident’s access to parking at the property was affected during this time.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2021 to say that she had been told by 21 residents that they had received no communication from the new company, and were unaware of the new permit system due to go live on 15 December. She asked for the introduction of parking controls to be suspended until the matter was fully resolved. The landlord agreed to this, and following a meeting with the resident, it composed a letter with her input for the new provider to send to all residents, fully explaining how the new parking system would work. It is concerning that the landlord had to enlist the help of the resident to write a letter that its new provider should have sent out. This was an action we would expect the landlord to take without being prompted or guided by the resident. It is also important to note that the new permit system was put on hold on 14 December 2021, following the resident’s request to the landlord.
  5. On 10 January 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had sent the letter to the new company, and that it would update her when it was due to be dispatched to all residents. The letter did not go out to residents until 18 February 2022, with parking controls starting at the same time. The landlord told the resident that it was “disappointed” with the time taken and that it had raised this with the parking enforcement company. It also later explained to the resident that further delays had been caused due to the parking enforcement company facing staffing issues.
  6. This further delay was understandably troubling for the resident, however the landlord did act appropriately in communicating with the parking enforcement company to try and get the issue resolved.
  7. In her stage 2 complaint, the resident told the landlord that she had called its customer services team about the parking provision on 9, 12, 16, and 24 July and been promised a call back within 24 hours each time. She did not receive a call back as promised, and told the landlord that she wanted the individual staff member responsible held accountable. While it is for the landlord to investigate the conduct of its employees, this was poor customer service from the landlord. It failed to both do what it said it would do, and manage the resident’s expectations in regard to calling her back.
  8. However, in its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the delay in providing its complaint response, and for the lack of communication to all residents regarding the change in car park management. It offered the resident compensation of £200, to recognise these failings in its service. Whilst it would have been disappointing that the landlord did not address the specific failure to call the resident back in its complaint response, the compensation it offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings that have had an adverse effect on a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it has a two-stage complaints process. It says stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint, and stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 12 July 2021. The landlord provided its response on 17 September 2021, which was almost two months later. This was outside of its complaint handling policy, and caused unnecessary frustration for the resident, as well as a delay for the resident in escalating her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process.
  3. The resident raised her stage 2 complaint on 19 September 2021. The landlord provided its response on 30 November 2021. This was 31 working days later, outside of its complaint handling policy, and caused a further delay for the resident in escalating her complaint to our Service.
  4. In its stage 1 response to the resident, the landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in responding. In its stage 2 response, it offered an additional £50 in compensation for the further delay in responding. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance for service failures of a short duration that have caused a resident inconvenience and distress. As such, this service has determined that while the landlord did fail to act in accordance with the timeframes set out, it recognised this and made an offer of redress with proportionately resolved this issue.
  5. The resident has said that the landlord referred her to the parking enforcement company to deal with her complaints. However, from the information available, on 28 September 2021, the parking enforcement company contacted the resident and asked that she direct any car parking-related complaints to them directly, rather than the landlord as it was better placed to deal with any specific concerns about enforcement. This information was also included in the company’s introductory letter to the resident. Nevertheless, the landlord responded to both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 formal complaints about its handling of the change in company , and there is no information to suggest that it has tried to direct her complaints about this issue back to the parking enforcement company.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about car parking provision. However the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. However the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.