London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202128192)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128192

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

27 April 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 landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident in relation to disabled parking.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, with the tenancy beginning in December 2019. The property is a ground floor three bedroom maisonette. The tenancy agreement shows the property did not come with any allocated parking or a garage.
The property is on a new build development consisting of private units and affordable housing units, with the resident occupying an affordable unit.
The resident’s development was considered a phased development made up of private roads that initially had disabled parking facilities. The disabled parking bays were then removed, by the developer as they were under their ownership and converted to private parking once all its private units were sold.
The resident has mobility issues which were detailed in her housing application to the landlord.
The resident requested on the housing application form that the following be considered when managing the tenancy:
1. Disabled parking bay.
2. Handrails for steps.
3. Bathroom handrails.
The estate management policy says that the landlord will aim to deliver parking provisions that meet the needs of its residents. It acknowledges that it will not satisfy all residents in its neighbourhoods as demand is often greater than supply.
The policy also says that the landlord will carry out regular checks of parking arrangements, during estate inspections, to ensure the parking provision meets the needs of residents. These checks will address any problems observed and, where necessary, introduce parking permit schemes, in consultation with local residents. The landlord will consider the use of external contractors to lawfully enforce parking arrangements where these are in place.
The tenancy agreement terms and conditions say that the resident:
1. Should not park on land owned by the landlord except where it is designated for parking.
2. Should not park without a valid permit, either for residents or visitors where there is a parking scheme in operation.

Summary of events

On 4 February 2020, the resident said she applied for a disabled parking bay with the local council. This was refused as her road was outside of the council’s highways jurisdiction.
In her complaint to the landlord the resident said that on 5 March 2020, the disabled bays in the adjacent roads were removed.
On 6 March 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to report there was nowhere to park using her disabled badge, as all the parking spaces were privately owned. The landlord explained that there was little it could do and suggested that the resident parked in a nearby road using her disabled badge.
On 5 October 2020, the resident left a message for the landlord requesting a call to discuss the “car parking issues”.
On 11 November 2020, in response to an enquiry from the resident’s MP, the landlord responded saying:
1. The development comprised of all private roads where disabled blue badges cannot be used.
2. The resident could use her disabled badge on roads which were owned by the local authority. It then named a road that was a two-to-three-minute walk away from the resident’s property.
3. The landlord included an excerpt from its lease with the developers saying that:
  1. “Parking permits will be issued allowing residents to park on-street within the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). No on-plot or undercroft (underground parking) provision will be made for affordable dwellings”.
4. The controlled parking zone indicated roads which were under the local council’s authority. No parking was provided for affordable dwellings on the private roads.
The resident complained again in February 2021, following this the landlord sent its stage one response on 26 March 2021, within which:
1. It apologised that the resident remained dissatisfied with the parking situation.
2. It said that street-accessed units were not classed as disabled units and as such, were not allocated any specific disabled parking spaces within its lease from the developers.
3. It explained that the resident’s property was previously a private unit, which was then converted to an affordable plot for the landlord.
4. It reviewed the building plans, and confirmed the resident’s property was not a wheelchair unit, and therefore would not have, by default, been provided with a disabled parking bay.
5. It confirmed that the disabled parking bays which were removed, were under the developer’s ownership. They had removed the disabled bays after all private units were sold, and the disabled bay provision was no longer necessary. The previously marked disabled bays were earmarked for private units only.
6. The landlord confirmed the adjacent road had not been adopted by the council and remained under the developer’s ownership.
7. Under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 – adoption of highways, roads can only be adopted after the completion of the entire development. The resident’s development was considered a phased development and therefore the adoption would take place once the final phase was completed. The adoption of the roads was not guaranteed, but the matter lay solely between the developer and the local authority.
8. The landlord discussed the parking issue with the sales team who were involved in the handover of the property. The sales team confirmed that the resident would have been informed that no parking was available for their property by way of the initial advertisement and upon first viewing of the property.
9. The nomination form from the council highlighted key information which the resident raised before accepting the property. Under the section “support needs” mobility issues were not mentioned.
10. If mobility issues had been mentioned, the property would have been deemed unsuitable and the resident would not have been nominated for the property.
In February 2022, the resident advised this service that she had not received a response to her complaint.
On 9 February 2022, following escalation from this service, the landlord wrote to the resident saying that:
1. The resident said she did not receive a final letter after it had closed down the initial case.
2. It apologised that she did not have sight of this; however, following the MP enquiry on her behalf, it responded accordingly.
3. Its response should have been passed on to her from the MP. The landlord provided the resident with a copy.
4. It again, apologised that it could not assist with the parking situation, but said it had done its utmost to assist all residents.
On 5 April 2022, the landlord sent its stage two response to the resident. It said that:
1. An MP response was sent on 26 March 2021 which fully communicated the reasons it could not provide a parking bay for the resident’s property.
2. The property was advertised without parking and during the tenancy acceptance period the resident was advised that no parking was available within this development.
3. The property was accepted based on no parking facilities being available.
4. All level parking bays were privately owned.
5. It suggested the resident:
  1. Explore a house swap.
  2. Reach out to the wider community to rent a parking space.
  3. Consider applying for a permit with the local authority when the adjacent road was adopted by them (The adjacent road was subject to adoption by the local authority by 2023).
6. It was unfortunate that the parking bays within this development did not fall under its remit and therefore, despite the possible changes of circumstances, it was unable to provide a parking bay as requested.
7. In recognition of the time, effort and inconvenience this matter may have caused the resident, it awarded £20 for the delay in responding at stage one and two.
8. The landlord confirmed this was its final response and to contact this service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord contacted the resident and advised it had credited her rent account with the compensatory offer of £20 and would close the case.
On 25 August 2022, the resident contacted this service outlining the following:
1. She was aware that the house did not have an allocated parking space, however she was advised there were several blue badge parking spaces nearby that she could use.
2. The landlord said, on several occasions, it was not aware that a disabled person lived at the property.
3. She included in her application that she needed a disabled parking space.
4. The landlord was completely aware of her situation which could be confirmed by the application form.
5. The resident did not know why the disabled parking bays were being cancelled, only that she had received a text message advising they were being misused by residents.
The resident explained to this service that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and how it dealt with the situation.

Assessment and findings

The developer does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, so we cannot make any orders or findings in regards to their actions. Accordingly, this report has focussed on the actions of the landlord.
The landlord acted appropriately by explaining its relationship with the developer and that its lease agreement did not allocate disabled parking for its affordable unit properties.
Furthermore, it’s not disputed that the disabled bays that were removed from the area were under the developer’s ownership and therefore out of the landlord’s control.
The resident’s tenancy agreement shows that the property did not have an allocated parking space or garage. Furthermore, the resident accepted that she was aware that the property did not come with a parking space at the time.
The resident says she accepted the property based on the assumption she could use the disabled parking bays that were in the vicinity. The resident says this was confirmed to her by the sales team at the time.
When investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord acted reasonably by contacting the sales team who were involved in the handover of the property. This demonstrated that it took the resident’s complaint seriously, by trying to clarify the situation for the resident.
This service has not had sight of any formal agreement confirming that the resident had uninterrupted use of the disabled bays. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it was an informal arrangement. The developers decision to end this arrangement by allocating the disabled bays to private bays, upon sale of the private units, was outside of the landlord’s control.
The landlord’s estate management policy says it will aim to deliver parking provisions that meet the needs of its residents. It acknowledged that it would not satisfy all residents in its neighbourhoods, as the demand was often greater than the supply.
The landlord explained to the resident that it would not be able to provide disabled parking to her. By acknowledging this early in the complaint and explaining its reasons, the landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord apologised that it would not be able to provide parking to the resident within the development, as its allocation did not fall under its remit. That apology was fair in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage one and two responses were appropriate as they clearly explained why it could not provide the resident with a disabled parking bay.
Nevertheless, the resident had said several times that the landlord was aware of her mobility needs. Yet, in its stage one response, the landlord said that it was not aware of the resident’s mobility issues as the nomination form from the local council did not specify any.
However, the evidence shows that the resident had stated on her housing application form to the landlord that a disabled parking bay should be considered when managing her tenancy. Therefore the landlord should have been aware of her mobility issues and highlighted the parking restrictions that were in place on the development at some point during the application process. The resident would have then been able to make an informed choice based on her personal circumstances.
In summary, the resident was aware that there was not allocated parking for the property when she signed the tenancy agreement. We know from the evidence that this was very distressing and inconvenient for the resident that the developer removed disabled parking from the vicinity, however, the landlord is not responsible for the developer’s parking restrictions.
Nevertheless, the landlord was aware of the resident mobility issues prior to her accepting the property and knew of the parking restriction on the development. Therefore it should have highlighted this to the resident at the time of accepting the property.
In conclusion, there was service failure in the landlord’s responses to the residents’ concerns about disabled parking by not considering the resident’s known personal circumstances during the application process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the resident in relation to disabled parking.

Reasons

Although, the resident was aware that there was no allocated parking bay or garage when she accepted the property, she did make the landlord aware of her need for disabled parking. The landlord said it was not aware of the residents mobility issues which was contrary to what the resident had said and was evidenced in her housing application.

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her concerns raised in relation to disabled parking.
This service noted that the landlord previously paid compensation awarded to the resident into her rent account. In accordance with the remedy’s guidance, the above compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.