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

One Vision Housing Limited (202207719)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207719

One Vision Housing Limited

14 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 handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a three-bedroom end of terrace house. The landlord’s records show that the resident has restricted mobility and suffers with mental health issues.
  2. The parking for the resident’s accommodation is an open area in the middle of a ‘U’ shaped close and parking spaces for the properties are unmarked. The area for parking is owned by the landlord and an allocated car parking space is not included as part of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  3. The resident submitted a request to the landlord to apply for a disabled parking space registered only to her address on 1 April 2021. There were reports of low-level disputes between the resident and her neighbour due to parking issues. These included reports of the neighbours blocking each other in and parking inconsiderately.
  4. On 22 December 2021, the landlord received an Occupational Therapist (OT) report which included a recommendation for a specified disabled parking bay nearest to the resident’s font gate. This was recommended as a major adaptation.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 1 July 2022 explaining she wanted the landlord to approve her request for a disabled parking bay. She advised staff members had told her this would be approved upon a recommendation being received from an OT. The resident mentioned she was experiencing parking issues with the neighbour.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2022 which outlined:
    1. Whilst the resident may benefit from a disabled parking bay, the proposal had been refused.
    2. It would not be possible to enforce exclusive use of a parking bay in the car park and would be difficult with the existing animosity between neighbours.
    3. Neighbourhood staff will mediate between the resident and neighbours to ensure residents park considerately.
    4. Should the resident wish to pursue a local authority solution for an exclusive disabled parking bay on a public highway, the landlord will support this application. It advised this would not be in front of the resident’s home.
  7. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 18 July 2022. She did not feel the landlord had thoroughly considered her request as a response had been provided quickly. She explained she was still experiencing parking issues.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 11 August 2022. This stated:
    1. It was upholding the decision not to provide the resident with a disabled parking bay outside her property having considered medical evidence.
    2. It would not be possible to enforce exclusive use of the parking bay.
    3. It would not be possible to allocate a parking bay for each address as it is not covered as part of the tenancy agreement.
    4. It could paint lines on the ground to encourage considerate parking, however this would not be enforceable.
    5. It had spoken to neighbours to encourage them to park in a considerate manner.
    6. It would support the resident with the application for a disabled parking bay through the local authority.
    7. If the resident went with the local authority option, it would assist the resident in accessing adaptation services to assist with her mobility from the parking space to her home.
  9. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she was unhappy that the landlord would not provide an allocated disabled parking bay to her. She disputed the landlord would not be able to approve the parking bay as it owned the land. The resident advised that when she returns home, the space outside her gate is taken. As a resolution, the resident wants the landlord to approve a disabled parking bay for her use only.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s aids and adaptations policy states that the landlord will make decisions on major aids and adaptations that meet needs identified through OT reports and within budgetary constraints. The landlord considered medical evidence provided by the resident, the OT report as well as the practicalities of how a disabled parking bay would work. As a disabled parking bay would not be enforceable and would therefore not grant exclusive parking for the resident, the landlord refused the request for a disabled parking bay. It advised anyone would be able to park in the space and this would not necessarily resolve the parking issues for the resident.
  2. The landlord acted in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement when acknowledging it could not enforce exclusive parking use for the resident if a disabled space was granted. This is because the tenancy agreement does not allocate parking spaces for residents’ properties, they can park wherever they wish within the open space. When reaching its decision, the landlord met with the resident on 27 July 2022 to explain the restraints of an exclusive use disabled parking bay and its reasoning for the decision. This was appropriate. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations by explaining its decision prior to the stage 2 response.
  3. As per the aids and adaptations policy, the decision ultimately falls to the landlord who appropriately considered all information available to it when reaching its decision not to grant a disabled parking bay for the resident.
  4. As a disabled parking bay in the landlord owned car park was not enforceable, the landlord identified an alternative option for the resident which was explained in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The landlord explained it could assist the resident in applying to her local authority for an exclusive use parking bay on a public highway. It was reasonable for the landlord to research this option and provide details to the resident, given the landlord could not offer her the outcome she was seeking. It took a customer focussed approach in trying to resolve her concerns by exploring other avenues.
  5.  The landlord also said it would support the resident approaching an adaptations service to assist her mobility from the highway to her home if she chose to pursue a disabled parking bay with the local authority. It was good practice for the landlord to offer support in the application process for mobility assistance from the parking space to the resident’s property. The landlord considered the resident’s requirements taking into consideration the OT report it had been provided with and attempted to find a suitable solution.
  6. Following the landlord’s refusal for a disabled parking bay, the resident asked it to paint lines on the car park or allocate individual spaces to residents via property numbers. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that lines could be painted on spaces, it noted this would not resolve the resident’s request for an exclusive use disabled parking space as anyone could park how they wished in the car park. The landlord responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint and considered all options when making its decision.
  7. It is understandable that the resident had concerns about the parking bays being misused by other residents given her need of parking near her property. To address this, the landlord took appropriate steps by instructing its neighbourhood officers to speak to residents requesting them to park considerately. This was a reasonable approach to address the resident’s concerns.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by clearly explaining the reasons to the resident as to why it could not provide her with a disabled exclusive use parking bay. It offered to assist the resident in applying for an alternative suitable option via the local authority and took action over the resident’s concerns about inconsiderate parking from neighbours in the car park. In light of this, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.