Optivo (202104692)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104692

Optivo

17 November 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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its allocation of parking bays and her request for a disabled parking bay.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since December 2019. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The landlord’s records show that the resident has restricted mobility and is registered disabled. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the property is a flat within a block and includes the use of an unnumbered (unallocated) parking space on the site.
The resident submitted a parking application form to the landlord on 1 August 2020 and specified that she required the use of a disabled parking bay but could also use a standard parking bay. On the form, she added that on the date her tenancy began, both herself and her occupational therapist (OT) were informed that she would be third on the waiting list for a parking bay in the underground carpark at the property. She had not been informed that she would need to complete an application form until that week, when she discovered that she was not on the waiting list. She expressed concern that she was being charged for communal car park charges on her tenancy agreement.
The resident called the landlord on 4 August 2020 and expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the parking as she was previously told that she would have an assigned parking space but this had not been the case. The landlord processed the resident’s parking application form and apologised that the resident was under the impression that she would not need to apply for a space.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 11 August 2020 to raise a complaint regarding her parking concerns and the information she had been provided when accepting the tenancy. She had now been told that she was number 14 on the waiting list and was dissatisfied with the process of gaining a parking bay.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 August 2020 and said that it had asked for the resident’s concerns to be looked into by a manager. It said it would provide an update by 14 August 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2020 and explained the following:
1. She was expecting a call-back on 12 August 2020 to discuss the complaint. She expressed concern that the landlord had previously said that it had no knowledge of her disability despite her ticking a box which confirmed that she required the use of a disabled parking bay.
2. She outlined her complaint and said that she had been made aware on viewing the property that she would be third on the list for a parking bay if she were to accept the tenancy. She had accepted the tenancy on this basis but was never informed that she would need to complete an application form. She had since filled in the form and was concerned about the number of people who would have moved ahead of her on the list since her tenancy began. She was concerned that the lack of available parking would worsen as the bays outside the estate were on loan from the local authority and would soon be taken back. She advised that the parking situation had caused significant frustration and distress.
3. She added various other concerns related to repairs required to her kitchen sink, oven door, radiator and flooring, as well as issues accessing keys to her front door and balcony door and issues regarding her service charge calculation which have not been considered as part of her complaint to this Service.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 August 2020 and confirmed, following a phone call the previous week, that it had raised the resident’s complaint formally. It said that it would provide a formal response by 28 August 2020.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 28 August 2020 and explained the following:
1. It had discussed the parking issues with the resident on the phone that day and had confirmed that there was limited parking available at the property. It was unable to provide every tenant a parking bay and the resident had been wrongly advised that parking would be available by the officer who completed the tenancy documentation.
2. The resident should have been told at the beginning of her tenancy how she could register on the waiting list for a parking bay and should not have received this information months later at a resident’s meeting. It confirmed that she was now registered on the waiting list for a parking bay and that there was a note indicating that she had mobility issues and wanted to be considered for a standard bay or one specifically for those with a disability. It confirmed that the application had been backdated to the date her tenancy commenced to ensure that she was not affected by the delay in formally placing her on the waiting list.
3. It explained that there was one list for all residents and those without a disability would not be considered for bays specifically designed for disabled residents. It confirmed that the resident was number 13 on the list overall and number three on the list for a disabled parking bay.
4. It confirmed that the resident’s tenancy agreement should not refer to any charges for parking and any reference made would be in error. It confirmed that the resident was not being charged for parking. There was a service charge element in her rent of £1.78 for communal parking and gates but this amount was credited to her rent account and not charged.
5. The landlord also addressed various other aspects of the resident’s complaint including significant delays to repair issues in the property, issues with incorrect keys and fobs being provided and her concerns regarding her service charge and staff conduct. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for the distress these issues had caused her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2020 and explained the following:
1. She had received a letter about changes to the parking arrangements around her property. She asked the landlord to confirm that it had her listed as a blue-badge holder. She added that she had been informed that parking would soon no longer be available on site and asked what she should do when the situation arose.
2. She referred to her formal complaint and said that since she had lived in the property she had been virtually housebound as there was limited available parking. She added that she was scared to come home to find that she could not park as she relied on her car for doctor’s appointments and for visiting family. She said that she was unable to walk any distance without the use of walking aids and added that the parking situation was affecting her physical and mental health. She said that she had once sat for two hours waiting for a space to become available so that she could enter her home.
3. She said that she had witnessed vans and cars using the disabled spaces without displaying blue-badges and was concerned that this was not monitored by the landlord. She also raised concern that a disabled space had recently been acquired by another tenant but she was still listed as number three on the waiting list. She said that she had witnessed cars occupying the spaces reserved for contractors late at night and asked how this was being monitored.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on 12 October 2020 and said it would respond by 19 October 2020.

The resident asked for a formal complaint to be raised on 24 November 2020 and explained the following:

She had contacted the landlord in October 2020 and was told that she would receive a response by 19 October 2020. She had raised her concerns that she had not received a response at the time and the member of staff informed her that they would call back. The lack of response had caused distress and had impacted her medical conditions.
She again expressed concern that a disabled parking bay had been acquired by another tenant but her position on the list had not changed. She said that she would not have accepted the property if she had known of the issues surrounding parking. She also raised concern that a disabled parking bay had been occupied by a van without a blue badge and asked the landlord to monitor this.
She added that she had continuous issues accessing a parking space on the site as parents from the local school often used the bays to wait for their children. She often had to wait over an hour for a space to become available. She said that she had not left her property for approximately six weeks out of fear of experiencing the same parking issues when she returned. She reiterated the impact that this was having on her health and had needed to cancel doctor’s appointments.

The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 14 December 2020 and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding and confirmed that her email of 6 October 2020 had been overlooked as it was believed that this had been responded to previously.
2. It confirmed that it was currently reviewing its parking policy. It had currently suggested prioritising blue-badge holders for standard bays as well as disabled bays where parking was in high demand, it hoped that this would reduce the waiting time for blue-badge holders.
3. To address the resident’s concerns about unauthorised vehicles using the allocated bays, it proposed to carry out an audit of all rented parking bays to ensure that the terms of the license agreements it had issued were being met.
4. It said that some external bays at the property had been removed. This was because the bays were given to the landlord on a temporary basis until the scheduled statutory works began to improve the safety around the local school. The works had now begun, meaning that the use of the bays located on a nearby road had been removed.
5. It repeated its findings detailed in its letter on 28 August 2020 and confirmed that the resident’s application had been backdated to the start of her tenancy to ensure she suffered no detriment given the delay in placing her on the list. The landlord confirmed that the resident was now ninth on the list for a standard bay and fourth on the waiting list for a disabled bay. The landlord confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed on 6 January 2021 by submitting a review request form and explained the following:
1. She remained dissatisfied that her email of 6 October 2020 had been overlooked as she had spent considerable effort detailing the landlord’s previous responses. She was also informed that the email would be found and sent to the right person but this had not been done.
2. She acknowledged that the landlord would be completing a review of its parking policy but noted that blue-badge holders should already be prioritised for all bays as outlined in the letters she had received regarding the ongoing issues with parking. She remained concerned that the allocated bays were misused and queried why a resident was permitted to have a parking bay and allowed visitors to use the space when they did not have use of a vehicle. She had been told that bays must be handed back when they are no longer needed and should not be used for visitors. She asked the landlord to address this. She also expressed concern that a parking bay had been reserved for a property due to be sold.
3. She expressed concern that the landlord had said she was now fourth on the list for a disabled bay when she was previously third. She was concerned that others had moved above her on the list and this was causing significant distress. She believed that she should be higher on the list and did not understand why she was further down.
4. She asked the landlord to place her higher on the waiting list where she felt she should be given the recent occupancy of parking bays. She asked the landlord to rectify the parking issues causing distress and inconvenience for disabled drivers. She also wanted the landlord to ensure that it read and addressed emails correctly.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 7 January 2021 and said that it would respond by 20 January 2021. On 20 January 2021 the landlord confirmed that it was waiting for further information and would respond the following day.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 21 January 2021 and explained the following:
1. It explained that it had a service standard of five working days for responding to emails. It noted that the member of staff had not responded to the resident’s email as they believed that the issue had already been addressed. It apologised for failing to meet its service standard and confirmed that a courtesy email should have been sent. It confirmed that the issue had been raised directly with the member of staff by their manager.
2. It apologised that the resident had received conflicting information about her position on the parking bay waiting list. It confirmed that the resident was fourth on its current list and explained that parking bays were allocated strictly by date of application. It said that a resident who had been on its general waiting list for some time had recently become a blue-badge holder. This meant that they had moved ahead of the resident on the list for a disabled bay as they had been on the waiting list for a greater amount of time.
3. It noted the resident’s comments regarding a parking bay being held for sale and confirmed that this was not the case. It said that the bay was pre-allocated and a resident who already had an allocated bay transferred into it. Their original bay was then allocated to a blue-badge holder. It acknowledged that there had been some confusion in how bays were allocated and confirmed that it had now employed a dedicated garage coordinator who would make the process clearer moving forward.
4. It noted the resident’s comments regarding parking bays being misused and said it would be carrying out an audit of all bays that year. It said it would investigate the resident’s concerns about individual households should she wish to share this information. It said that the audit would allow it to identify and deal with any misuse and reallocate spaces if appropriate. It said that due to the restrictions in place as a result of Covid-19, it had been unable to complete the audit due to the need to meet with resident’s face-to-face at the property.
5. It said that it would not escalate the resident’s complaint for review by its panel as it had apologised for its previous lack of response and it was committed to carrying out an audit of the parking bays when it was safe to do so. It said that the panel would be unable to change the resident’s place on the waiting list as this was managed strictly by date of application.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied that when another resident obtained a blue-badge, it would put others further down on the waiting list. She expressed dissatisfaction with the information she had provided related to parking when she moved in and that she had been given differing accounts of her place on the waiting list for a parking bay. She said that on August 2021 she was informed that she was number eight on the list and that there was only one list for parking bays which was contradictory to the information she had previously been given.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said she considers that the parking issues have impacted her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the parking at the property and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its allocation of parking and her request for a disabled parking bay.

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the property includes the use of an unnumbered parking space. The landlord’s garage and parking bay procedure states that anyone who wants to rent a parking bay would need to complete an application form. The landlord prioritises applicants in the following order: its resident’s holding a blue-badge, other residents, general public blue-badge holders and all other applicants. It then prioritises applicants in order of the date it received the application. For parking bays in schemes, applicants must be a resident within that scheme and use the bay for their nominated vehicle only. Blue-badge holders have the highest priority for standard bays, providing the bay is within a reasonable distance to their home and is suitable for their needs.
The Ombudsman cannot comment on what the resident was told at the start of her tenancy as there is no documentary evidence of the conversations that took place. However, it is clear that the resident was not adequately informed that she would need to complete an application form for a parking bay until approximately six months into her tenancy, which caused her significant distress. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to apologise to the resident and backdated her application to the start of her tenancy to ensure that there was no detriment caused by the delay in placing her on the waiting list for a parking bay.
It is understandable that the current parking situation at the property may be distressing for the resident given her disability and the landlord has acknowledged this importance. However, the landlord would not be expected to change her position on the waiting list at her request. This is because other tenants on the waiting list may also need these spaces for similar, personal reasons and may have been waiting longer than the resident for a space to be made available. The landlord has an obligation to treat each tenant fairly and it would not be reasonable for the landlord to move the resident to a higher position on the list given the potential needs of other tenants.
The landlord has provided evidence to confirm that there are approximately 46 available parking bays for allocation on the site, with all spaces currently allocated. At the time the Ombudsman requested this information, the resident was number four on the list for a disabled bay and each resident above her on the list had applied before December 2019, the date of the resident’s backdated application. The evidence also confirms that all recently allocated bays had been issued to those who had applied earlier than the resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had acted unreasonably or moved her down the overall waiting list for a parking space.
Whilst there was some initial confusion regarding the change in position on the waiting list, the landlord gave a satisfactory explanation as to why another tenant had moved above the resident on the waiting list for a disabled bay. It confirmed that the individual had been on the original waiting list for longer than the resident and their circumstances had changed, meaning they now specifically required the use of a disabled parking bay. This is reasonable as it would be unfair of the landlord to penalise a tenant due to a change in circumstances or place them lower on the list that they had originally been.
The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident for its lack of response to her email dated 6 October 2020. It also took points of learning from the resident’s complaint and had discussed this with the member of staff’s manager to improve its communication in the future. These actions are considered reasonable and resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
It is understandable that the resident had concerns about the parking bays being misused by other resident’s given her immediate need of a space. The landlord has acted appropriately by stating that it would complete an audit of the parking bays to ensure that these were not being misused. It was reasonable for there to be a delay in completing the audit given the impact of the Covid-19 restrictions in place at the time of the complaint. It is recommended that the landlord confirms its intentions regarding the audit as agreed and informs the resident as to when this would be carried out if it has not already done so. The landlord has also taken steps to resolve the ongoing parking issues by employing a garage coordinator in an attempt to make the process clearer.
It seems that following the resident’s complaint she experienced some uncertainty regarding her position on the waiting list for a parking bay. She claimed that she had now been told that there was one waiting list and she was 8th in line for a parking bay. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to clarify her current position on the waiting list for both a disabled bay and a standard bay to manage her expectations satisfactorily.
Overall, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its failure to provide correct information regarding the need to complete a parking application form when her tenancy began. It has apologised to the resident and backdated her application so that she was not disadvantaged by the delay in placing her on the list. The landlord has satisfactorily restored the resident’s position to where she would have been if she had been given the correct information about completing an application form when the tenancy began. It has also apologised for its failure to respond to an email on 6 October 2020 in line with its service standard and taken points of learning from the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the resident’s concerns about its allocation of parking bays prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged that the resident was not given the correct information regarding applying for a parking bay at the start of her tenancy and backdated her application to ensure that she suffered no detriment due to the delay in placing her on the waiting list. It has also apologised to the resident for its failure to respond to her email of 6 October 2020 and discussed this with the member of staff. The landlord has taken steps of learning from the resident’s complaint and has sought to resolve the issues by employing a garage coordinator and proposing to complete an audit of the parking bays on the site to ensure they are not being misused.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to clarify her current position on the waiting list for both a disabled bay and a standard bay to manage her expectations satisfactorily.
In view of the circumstances, it is recommended that the landlord considers updating the resident each time her position on the waiting list changes to manage her expectations.
It is recommended that the landlord confirms its intentions regarding the audit as agreed and informs the resident as to when this would be carried out if it has not already done so.