Network Homes Limited (202000884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000884

Network Homes Limited

26 May 2021

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 concerns about parking management.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord’s property. The property is a flat on the first floor of a building of five flats. The development has designated parking spaces, which the resident’s property looks out onto. The landlord is the freeholder of the block and the car park.

The landlord’s obligations

3.     The landlord’s Parking Policy (the policy), issued in July 2019, says as follows at section 5.0:

“(the landlord) will introduce parking control and enforce this on schemes it owns or otherwise manages where parking restrictions are in place or are required..(or) where parking facilities are misused or become a location of nuisance”.

4.     In relation to what action the landlord may take, the policy states:

“(the landlord) may at times consult with residents on a scheme where it has been identified that there is a parking issue. Consultation may be in the form of identifying how many vehicles are on a scheme or whether parking enforcement should be introduced. If following a consultation, residents opt out of parking enforcement and there is clear evidence of ongoing issues, complaints or nuisance, (the landlord) may disregard the views of residents if there are no other options in addressing the issues, complaints or nuisances”.

Summary of events

5.     The resident complained that as there is no gate at the entrance to the car park, other people – who do not live in the block – were parking their cars there. She said that in addition to leaving their cars there, they were making noise at night, and taking drugs.

6.     The resident contacted the Ombudsman about her concerns in May 2020, and advised that she had first complained to the landlord about the matter in January 2019. The Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord in July 2020 about the actions in had taken in response to the resident’s concerns about unauthorised parking.

7.     The landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaint process. A copy of this correspondence has not been provided to the Ombudsman. However, the resident was unhappy with the response; and her complaint was considered further by the landlord. 

8.     On 21 August 2020, a stage two complaint response was issued. Within its response, the landlord said:

1. after being alerted to the unauthorised parking, it had arranged for the Parking Control Team to attend.
2. it was recommended a warden patrol team was the best option given the size of the scheme.
3. due to the Coronavirus pandemic the parking control team were not attending for a period, as the resident had previously been advised by the Leasehold Property Manager (the manager).
4. the manager had written to the identified non-residents asking them not to leave their vehicles in the car park. However, it understood that they had continued to do so, despite the request.
5. the manager had also been obtaining quotes for barriers or bollards to be installed, and this had also been delayed due to the pandemic.
6. there were planning constraints when building properties, as the council were not always in favour of giving planning permission for gates/barriers as they have a strong belief in an open community, although the option was there if there was an ongoing problem with unauthorised parking.
7. once quotes had been received, the manager would consult with residents as there were other works due on the block with a cost implication. There was also a strict consultation process which could not be bypassed.
8. there was no guarantee that the barriers would solve the problem, and it would continue the patrol system whichever option the residents voted for.
9. it was taking the matter seriously, but the resident had to allow time for steps to be taken to carry out the suggested changes to the parking scheme.

The resident was advised that she could refer the complaint to the Ombudsman if she was unhappy with the response she had received.

9.     On 13 October, the resident emailed the landlord and said that nothing has been done to stop unauthorised parking. The resident said that it had taken over two months for quotes for an electric gate to be installed and she felt the reasons given as to why it could not be installed were not valid.  The resident attached a picture of a vehicle blocking her car in and said she would not be able to get out in an emergency as she would not know who it was had parked there.

10. The manager responded on 14 October, and said he would attend the building the following day with a contractor to assess the possibility of installing barriers – the residents preferred option. He added that he had also received a quote for locking posts. The manager asked if the resident would be present when attending the block; and explained that following the visit, he would consult with the other residents.

11. The resident contacted this Service on 24 November. She said:

1. the parking patrols had not been carried out ‘due to Covid’; and that the wardens had only attended twice since signs had been put up.
2. she had reported cars on the parking wardens’ website, but that they did not come and issue tickets, and there was no response to phone calls.
3. patrols had not been increased, despite what she had been told by the manager.
4. gates would be a preferable solution as it was not only people parking cars but hanging around taking drugs. She added that the police had attended previously.
5. posts would not help, as the scheme needed a gate.
6. she wanted to take court action, but she was mentally and physically drained.

12. On 5 December at 11.33PM and 11.43PM, the resident emailed the landlord and described that the resident of a nearby flat (Flat A) and his friends had been making noise and smoking drugs since 10.00PM. She added that the police had come and told them to go, but they were still there. She said that no one would object to a gate being installed, and a barrier would not help. She said that the landlord did not care, and the situation was affecting her mental health. The resident added that she was having therapy and was signed off work, and did not feel safe living there. She said that the police could not keep attending, and that they had advised for the landlord to install a gate. The resident was concerned that the man from flat A and his friends would confront residents from her building now that the police had gone.

13.  On 6 December, the resident emailed the landlord and advised of activity that took place in the car park after the police left. The email also discussed that residents of the block had been parking incorrectly – in bays not allocated to them. The resident expressed her opinion that the landlord should be doing more to encourage residents to park in the correct spaces; and that if they did, it would prevent non-residents from parking in the car park. She suggested again that gates should be installed; and stressed that action needed to be taken as she had been contacting the landlord in relation to the matter since January 2019.

14. The manager responded to the resident and advised that he had emailed the wardens to request more patrols. He said that he had chased his colleague for an update on the barriers to commence consultation; and that it he needed to consult with all five residents. The manager added that he had written to all residents – including the one who gave a permit to a friend – and that he had fitted a security light.

15. The same day, the resident responded to advise that she would rather the money planned for her widows was used towards improving security within the car park. She added that she was aware that other residents had made similar complaints to the landlord. In response, the manager reiterated that he needed to consult with all residents, as there would be cost implications for any work not planned for.

16. The manager subsequently wrote to the resident of all five properties in the block on 21 April 2021. He asked the residents to vote for what security measures they would prefer and outlined the associated costs of the options as follows:

Barrier = £1,722.16 + VAT, plus ongoing maintenance.

Locking posts = £1,617.80 + VAT no maintenance.

Continue with the warden service – no associated costs.

There was an enclosed voting form to be returned by 15 May 2021; and it is noted that the landlord advised that the outcome of the vote would be communicated by 31 May 2021.

17. The resident emailed this Service on 29 April 2021 and advised that the unauthorised parking continued to be a problem.

Assessment and findings

18. The lease agreement is silent in relation to the landlord’s obligations in respect of the car park. However, the landlord’s parking policy, as detailed above, sets out its responsibilities and what actions it will take where parking control needs to be enforced.

19. From the evidence that has been provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord has followed its policy and has consulted with residents as to what action will be taken to resolve the parking concerns. In the meantime, it has employed a warden service.  It is noted that the resident does not believe the warden service to have been effective in deterring non-residents from using the car park; and that she has concerns about the service’s responsive when she does report issues. However, the policy does not stipulate how often patrols should be made and how these would be managed or enforced. It follows that the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of a failure in relation to how the warden patrols have been undertaken.

20. The landlord may wish to review the service that has been provided to assess whether using the warden patrols has had any impact. This may be useful in identifying how the service needs to be adapted if it is an enforcement measure that it wishes to continue using, or if it is the method chosen by the residents.

21. When responding to the complaint, the landlord appropriately explained why it could not install a gate – as the resident had requested. It is acknowledged that the resident does not accept the explanation that the landlord has provided in relation to why it cannot install a gate. However, there is no obligation on the landlord – under the lease agreement, or in statute – to install a gate at the request of a resident. It follows that the landlord’s decision not to take such action was not a failing in the circumstances.

22. The landlord has taken steps to offer all residents a choice of options regarding future parking enforcement, in line with its policy, and this was an appropriate response in the circumstances.

 

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking management.

Reasons

24.  The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate action, in line with its obligations under its parking policy, in response to the concerns that had been raised by the resident about unauthorised parking.