Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202210892)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210892

Notting Hill Genesis

31 July 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 response to the resident’s request for a parking space on the estate.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident has been a shared owner of her property with the landlord, a housing association, since 2008.
3. Since purchasing the property, the resident has been diagnosed with severe depression and agoraphobia. As a result of the diagnosis, the resident received a blue badge, which is a parking badge issued by the council to those with mobility problems who find it difficult to use public transport. The badge allows holders to park close to where they need to go.
4. The property is within a block located on an estate, which has 30 parking bays. 12 of the bays are owned by third parties not related to the landlord. 2 bays have been assigned to the landlord’s general needs residents and the remaining 16 have been purchased by the landlord’s leaseholders, with their properties. The resident of the complaint did not purchase a parking bay with her flat.

Summary of events

5. This service has not been given copies of the correspondence between the parties dating back to 2021. However, the parties agreed that the resident initially contacted the landlord about being allocated a parking space around the beginning of 2021, after she was issued a blue badge.
6. In May 2022, the resident was advised by the landlord, that she could park in one of the bays. The bay she was given permission to use, belonged to a third party however, the landlord did not notify her of this at the time and advised her that she could install a bollard in the space to stop others parking there. A few weeks later, the use of the parking bay was revoked from the resident because the third party it belonged to required use of the bay.
7. On 25 May 2022, the resident was refused a disabled resident parking bay by the council. The reason the council provided for the decision was that it found that there was off street parking on the resident’s estate.
8. The resident notified the landlord that the parking space it had allocated, had been taken away and following this, the landlord agreed to investigate whether it could assign the resident another bay. On 1 July 2022, it informed the resident that it could not assign her a space, as she had not purchased one when she bought her property.
9. In response to this, the resident referenced a mutual covenant in her lease which states, “ “Not to apply for a residents parking bay unless the premises are occupied by the holder of a disabled persons badge under the Chronically Sick & Disabled Person’s Act 1970..”.She advised that she had a blue badge and due to her vulnerabilities, not being able to park close to her home was causing her to have panic attacks when she needed to go out. The resident said that the council had informed her that as there were four disabled parking bays on the estate, one should be allocated to her. She also raised that existing users of those bays were not displaying blue badges. The resident asked the landlord to investigate her request for a bay again, which it did.
10. By 22 July 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it was still waiting for information for its investigation. The resident, on 28 July 2022, provided the landlord with the numbers of several parking bays that she had noticed were never occupied by cars. The landlord reviewed this and confirmed that the bays mentioned, had been purchased by other leaseholders. When confirming this, the landlord asked if the resident was happy for it to pass her details to those leaseholders who owned the noted bays, so that the resident could make arrangements to park in their unused bay. The resident agreed to this. When doing so, she mentioned that the four marked disabled bays should not have been allocated and questioned why those without blue badges were able to use them.
11. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 17 August 2022 that following its further investigation, it found that all the parking bays were already allocated, and it could not therefore, allocate her a bay. It advised that the clause the resident referred to in the lease referred to the responsibility of the council and not it as the freeholder. It advised the resident to contact the council to see if it could assist and offered to provide the resident with a letter of support for this. It agreed that in the meantime, it would contact the residents who owned bays to see if they were willing to make an arrangement with the resident to park in their bay.
12. The resident responded the same day and confirmed that she had already contacted the council. She provided a copy of the council’s decision to her request in May 2022. She expressed that she was dissatisfied with the response as she believed that the disabled bays at least, should not have been allocated.
13. On 18 August 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its response to her request for a parking bay. She reiterated that the council had advised her that she should be allowed to park in a disabled bay on the estate and that those bays should not be allocated. She advised that the cars parking in the disabled bays did not have blue badges displayed either. The resident advised that she had been querying the matter for almost two years and the space she was allocated in May 2022 was revoked after two weeks by the business who owned it, leaving her with no parking. She advised that the resolution she was seeking was for the landlord to allocate her a disabled parking bay.
14. The landlord provided its stage one response, on 19 August 2022. It confirmed that there no available parking bays to allocate the resident one of the bays. It advised that the lease plan showed only two disabled bays were available therefore, the additional two may have been painted in error. It advised that nevertheless, all of the bays were allocated and demised to properties. The landlord said that the estate was a car free development and that residents could not apply to the council for a permit unless a clause in the lease applied. The landlord said about the use of the disabled bays, that generally disabled bays were assigned to disabled adapted flats. It advised that once demised to a property, there was no requirement from it to drivers, to own or display a blue badge. The landlord reiterated its advice that the resident approach the local authority and its offer to provide a supporting letter.
15. The landlord confirmed that it had since been in touch with the owners of parking bays and asked them to contact the resident. It advised that if an agreement were made between the residents, this would be private and it could not guarantee any permanency or define any terms of such agreement. The landlord acknowledged that it took more than a year to clarify its position to the resident. It offered her £150 for the stress caused and another £150 for the inconvenience and time it had taken to resolve the matter.
16. The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 22 August 2022, following advice from this service. By this time, the resident had been contacted by one of the residents who owned an unused bay. They offered to rent the bay to the resident for a fee, but the resident was not able to agree to this due to the cost.
17. The landlord provided its stage two response on 20 October 2022. It explained that despite efforts, it could not provide the resident with a parking space on the estate. The landlord acknowledged the time taken to resolve the matter since 2021 and the time taken for it to provide a definitive answer about the possibility for it to allocate her a bay, was not acceptable. It acknowledged that the distress and inconvenience was added to, when the space she was given in May 2022 was then taken away. It confirmed that the assignment of the bay was an error as it belonged to a third party and was not available to the landlord to assign. The landlord acknowledged that there was no evidence that the resident was notified of this. The landlord advised that in a conversation, the resident mentioned that no one attended to the estate to look for possible solutions to the issues, which it said it believed had contributed to the delay in her receiving information about the parking. It advised the issues it identified in its handling of the matter had been taken up with the senior staff. In addition, it advised that going forward, it was going to ensure that information regarding the parking on the estate was readily available to property managers of the estate. It apologised and said it was sympathetic to the resident’s situation. The landlord also explained that due to a miscommunication, there was a delay in it escalating the complaint after the request was made.
18. It offered the resident £250 for the delay in providing the information regarding the parking bay, £250 compensation for the misinformation she received about the availability of the parking bay she was allocated in May 2022 and £250 in recognition of the general distress caused by the situation. The landlord also offered £150 in recognition of the delay in its stage two response. The landlord referenced its parking policy and accepted that this was not as clear as it could have been, about parking allocations. It confirmed that the policy had since been revised to provide clarity. It advised that in line with its parking management policy, as there were no unallocated bays, it could not assign a bay to the resident in accordance with her need. It explained that as a landlord it was not required to extend reasonable adjustments to car parking.
19. The landlord also confirmed it had looked into whether it could assist, if the resident needed to move flats to better suit her requirement but found it could do anything. It advised that as a shared ownership leaseholder, the resident was encouraged to consider the suitability of the property for her needs and in the meantime, explore arrangements of renting a parking space privately offered by her neighbour. The landlord said the resident may also wish to appeal the council’s decision to her application for it to provide a disabled parking space.

Assessment and findings

Policies, lease terms and relevant guidance.

20. Prior to October 2022, the landlord’s parking management policy stated that parking could be allocated to residents or leaseholders, in accordance with lease agreements. It noted that exemptions may be applied, based on household circumstances or, if the resident was disabled and a blue badge holder.
21. During the complaints procedure, the landlord amended its parking management policy to include further information about parking allocations. Its revised policy states that where parking spaces are already allocated on its estates, it will not be able to de-allocate a parking space and give priority to residents on the priority list. The priority list it refers to, includes disabled residents and/or blue badge holders.
22. Landlords may have obligations to make reasonable adjustments in response to a request from a disabled resident of its property, in accordance with the Equalities Act 2010. However, this duty does not extend to car parking and there is therefore, no obligation for a landlord to provide a parking space.

The response to the request for a parking space on the estate.

23. It took the landlord a significant time, more than 12 months, to clarify that there were not in fact, any bays available to allocate to the resident. The information about the parking bays was available to the landlord, in the form of the records it held within its system and land registry. Therefore, it was appropriate that in response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that there was an avoidable delay and that the time it took to address the resident’s request, resulted in unnecessary distress and inconvenience for the resident.
24. The impact on the resident was heightened by the fact that her expectations had been mismanaged when she was allocated the parking bay in May 2022. It is clear that the landlord was not entitled to offer the bay in the first place, as it belonged to a third party.
25. Once it had become known in June 2022, that the resident could no longer use the bay, the landlord took appropriate steps to thoroughly investigate whether the resident could have an allocated space. Initially, the landlord indicated that the reason the resident could not be given a bay was because she had not purchased one with her property but then it provided clarification that it could not allocate a bay because one was not available. It took the landlord a month before it provided further clarification about why it could not provide the resident with a bay but, the landlord has taken that delay into consideration within its complaint response.
26. The landlord acted on information the resident provided it about unused bays and provided a reasonable suggestion that the resident consider arranging to park in one of the bays that had been purchased but not used. This resulted in the resident being offered a space to rent by another leaseholder. While this was not an ideal offer for the resident, the landlord’s suggestion of this was a reasonable alternative given there were not any available parking spaces.
27. The landlord’s actions to take steps so that such an arrangement could be made, showed its willingness to provide the resident with a resolution to an issue that it was aware was longstanding and had caused the resident undue stress. It also demonstrated this in its offer to provide a supporting letter to the resident when it signposted her to the local authority.
28. The landlord also appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the availability of the disabled parking bays on the estate. On private land, where disabled bays may be available, there are no statutory concessions for blue badge holders. Therefore, there is no requirement for the users of those bays to display such a blue badge. While good practice, there is also no obligation that prevents a landlord from allocating a disabled bay to a resident as it has done in this case.
29. The landlord’s complaint response appropriately acknowledged all of its shortcomings in the handling of the resident’s request from the outset. Its compensation policy confirms that it may make a discretionary payment if a resident has suffered inconvenience or distress above what a reasonable person would be expected to tolerate. It provides that for high impact, for example, where there has been an injustice to the resident that has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience, it can award up to £250.
30. By its offer of £750, the landlord made a proportionate offer in line with its policy. It acknowledged that there has been a high impact on the resident, as a result of the delay in it addressing the matter. This impact includes the fact that had it provided the resident the information about the unavailability of bays to allocate from the start, she would have been clear on a way forward with the matter much sooner. It specifically identified that the misinformation it gave the resident about the availability of a space in May 2022, was also significant contribution to the impact and caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience and false hope.
31. The landlord has been sympathetic to the resident’s circumstances as while it has no obligation to provide her a parking space, it has nevertheless, explored alternatives and appropriately signposted the resident, offering its support with this.
32. Moreover, the landlord has considered the learning from the complaint and applied this. It revised its parking management policy so that this was clearer about the circumstances where it could and could not consider allocating a parking space. It also recognised that a conversation was required with its property management staff regarding the timeliness of responses and their knowledge of the parking arrangements on the estate, in the event of any future queries of a similar nature.
33. The landlord also appropriately addressed the two month delay in its stage two response. It explained the reason for the delay, offered an apology and awarded the resident £150 compensation.

Determination (decision)

34. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the scheme, the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its response to the request for a parking space on the estate.

Reasons

35. The landlord recognised that it did not respond to the resident’s request appropriately in the first instance and that this was worsened by it giving misinformation about the availability of a space it did not own. It has offered compensation which recognises both the errors and the impact off those errors and it has given the resident appropriate advice on the options available to her.

Recommendations

36. The above finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord making the payment of the £900 compensation it offered to the resident in its complaints procedure. Therefore, the landlord is to confirm to this Service within four weeks that the payment has been made.