Shian Housing Association Limited (202017018)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017018

Shian Housing Association Limited

16 May 2022

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:
1. A parking fine the resident received from Parking Control Management.
2. The resident’s request for a disabled parking bay.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a block, owned by the landlord.
The residents of the block have access to a car park. The car park is shared with residents of another block, owned by another housing association. Each landlord has allocated bays within the car park for their respective residents.
In July 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised that it in August 2019, it would introduce parking enforcement measures in the car park. It explained its decision to do so was following complaints received from residents. It confirmed that it would be introducing a parking enforcement service, Parking Control Management (PCM), to monitor the car park. Residents were therefore required to obtain permits, display these on their vehicles and park fully within the confines of marked bays.
The resident received a penalty charge notice from PCM on 26 November 2020. They called the landlord on 7 December 2020 and explained that they had received the ticket as they had not parked in the designated parking space while unloading shopping from their car. The landlord advised the resident to appeal the ticket with PCM as soon as possible, as it could not cancel it. It sent the resident a letter the same day and reiterated this advice.
On 24 December 2020, the resident’s representative wrote to the landlord about a concern the resident raised about the absence of parking for disabled persons. It asked the landlord to clarify what arrangements it would be making for car parking to accommodate disabled residents in future.
The representative also said that they had contacted PCM regarding the parking fine and it asked for a copy of the residents disabled parking badge, but the resident was not able to send this as they did not use the internet. The representative said that the resident had sent the landlord a copy of the disabled parking badge previously and asked if it could, therefore, send this to PCM on the resident’s behalf and request that the penalty charge be voided.
The landlord responded on 5 January 2021. It noted that due to the national lockdown as a result of the Covid 19 pandemic, it may be quicker for the resident send a copy of their disabled parking badge, issued by the local authority, to PCN via the post. It said it would look for a copy of the badge when it was in a position to, and if it found this it would send a copy to the representative. It confirmed that it was the resident’s responsibility to provide the information to appeal the ticket to PCM.
In relation to the request for parking arrangements for disabled residents, it explained that if a disabled parking bay was introduced it would impact on the number of bays available to residents, who did not hold a disabled parking badge. It said that it would undertake a consultation with residents to see if they would be willing to allow the introduction of a disabled parking bay. It said that if agreed, the disabled parking bay would not be for the exclusive use of any resident and would be accessible to anyone who held a disabled parking badge.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents of the block and asked that they confirm whether or not, they wanted to have a disabled bay introduced to the car park.
The resident’s representative wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2021 and asked for an update on what steps it was taking to provide disabled parking facilities for the resident. It also mentioned that it had emailed the landlord on 7 January 2021, to ask for the recently extended double yellow lines at the entrance to the car park to be pushed back, so that the resident and other disabled residents could park temporarily to load/unload their vehicles. In relation to the parking charge, it said that PCM had informed the resident that it required the landlord to contact it to put the charge on hold, so that it may be appealed. The representative also said that the resident requested their £10, but provided the landlord with no further information about this.
The landlord confirmed that it had carried out the consultation with residents in January 2021 about the possible introduction of a disabled parking bay. It said that the majority of residents did not support this, as it would result in a loss of a parking bay for residents, as the disabled bay would be open to any disabled parking badge holder not just its residents. It said it was not able to move the yellow lines in place for the health and safety of all residents and access reasons. The landlord confirmed that it did not own the area outside of its allocated bays, as the car park was shared with another housing association.
The landlord confirmed that it contacted PCM regarding disabled parking badge owners and was assured that usually, PCM offer a grace period of up to 15 minutes for any disabled badge holders before issuing a charge. It reiterated that the resident would need to contact PCM directly to challenge the charge. Regarding the £10 the resident requested, it said that was not aware of this and asked for further information.
On the 12 March 2021, the resident contacted this Service and said that they wished to formally complain about the landlord’s response to the parking charge they received. This Service wrote to the landlord the same day, and asked that it consider a formal complaint.
The landlord sent the resident a stage one pre–decision response on 19 March 2021. This set out its intended findings following its investigation of the complaint. The landlord said that it informed residents in 2019, that it had no jurisdiction over enforcement action taken on vehicles and would not act as a mediator concerning any enforcement action. It confirmed that it had given the resident and their representative, advice that the resident would need to contact PCM directly to appeal the charge. It said that it could not find any evidence that it had said that it would ask PCM to cancel the charge, as this was beyond its remit. The landlord said that it was likely to conclude that it had not denied responsibility or discriminated against the resident in dealing with the charge and said that it was likely that it would not uphold the complaint unless further information was provided.
It also confirmed that it had contacted PCM and was informed that it would not issue a ticket while a vehicle is in use, but would issue a ticket if:
1. A vehicle was not parked within the bays.
2. A valid permit was not displayed on the vehicle windscreen.
3. A vehicle was parked on the double yellow lines, obstructing the car park entrance.
4. A vehicle was parked in a way that could potentially cause a health and safety risk for residents and obstruct emergency services.
In relation to the request for a disabled parking bay, the landlord confirmed that it carried out a consultation with residents in January 2021 and on the basis of the feedback it received, it would not introduce the disabled bay. The landlord said that it would not likely uphold the complaint unless further information was provided.
The stage one response was sent to the resident on 29 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that it had not received any further information from the resident and did not uphold the complaint.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 25 March 2021, after being contacted by the resident. It confirmed to this Service that it provided the stage one response and had not received feedback from the resident or their representative. It resent the letter to the resident the same day.
The resident contacted the Service on 1 April 2021 and discussed the landlord’s response. They said that:
1. They had made 4-5 calls to the landlord about the charge between November 2020 and February 2021. They said due to a lack of response, they made calls to PCM, who told them that the landlord had not been in contact with it. They said that they believed the landlord refused to call PCM.
2. They were told that the permit cost £10 and later found out that it was free of charge.
3. PCM said that it had no copies of information the resident had sent to the landlord.
4. The landlord had more parking bays than residents with cars therefore, they believed there were spaces available to convert one to a disabled bay. They asked for a specific bay, so that it was closer to the entrance of the property. The resident said that the location of the parking bays from the entrance of the property made loading and unloading their vehicle difficult. They said that on one occasion, they had passed out.
5. They requested the yellow lines be pushed back so that they can have a place to park while they loaded/unloaded their vehicle.
6. They wanted the landlord to provide details about who it had contacted about the charge, when this was and proof of this in the form of recordings.
This Service wrote to the landlord 14 April 2021 and relayed the resident’s points to its stage one response. We asked the landlord if it could consider a stage two complaint in light of the residents points. It confirmed that it would review the complaint at stage 2.
The landlord issued its pre decision to the stage two complaint, on 23 April 2021. It said that:
1. It is not able to intervene in matters to do with enforcement action taken by PCM. It confirmed that its communication with residents in 2019 had also explained this and it reiterated that residents would need to appeal charges directly with PCM.
2. The resident’s statement that they had contacted it a number of times between November 2020 and February 2021 was new information. It asked the resident to provide the approximate dates and times of the calls, as it did not have this. It said that once provided, it could review its records and clarify what information the resident was given at that time about the charge. It asked the resident to provide the information by 4 May 2021.
3. Its records indicated that the resident contacted it on 7 December 2020 and following this, it sent a letter to the resident with advice that they contact PCM. A copy of the letter was enclosed. It reiterated that the same advice was given to the resident’s representatives and provided copies of the emails showing this.
4. Regarding the £10 fee the resident said that they were told the permit costs, it confirmed it had informed the residents in 2019 that they receive one free permit. It said that if the resident paid £10, they would need to provide a receipt and details of who the payment was made to so that it could look into it. It asked that this information be provided by 4 May 2021.
5. The point about PCM informing that it had no copies of the information that the resident had sent to the landlord, was correct and in line with the advice it gave that it would not contact PCM on resident’s behalf.
6. In relation the resident’s request for proof of who it contacted about the charge, it provided the note from the resident’s contact with it on 7 December 2020 and the correspondence it had with their representative. It said that the phone recording was no longer available in line with its two week retention policy.
7. About the resident’s statement about the number of parking spaces available relative to the number of residents who drove, the landlord said that it could not look into this allegation. It said that it had 16 properties and 10 bays and its records showed that all of the parking bays were being used by its residents, including the resident, and they had all been issued permits.
8. In relation to the request for a disabled parking bay it confirmed it would not be able to offer this and it could not push back the yellow line, as this could cause serious health and safety implications, because the entrance to the car park could be obstructed by a parked vehicle. It said that it was sorry to hear that the resident had passed out and noted that it hoped the resident was getting the support they required for their health.
In conclusion, the landlord confirmed that it was unlikely that it would uphold the complaint about how it responded to the parking charge, unless the resident provided it with additional information. It said that it could not agree to the disabled parking bay, but could look into a request for a designated car parking space for the resident. It confirmed that PCM agreed to offer a grace period to residents loading/unloading their vehicles but not in instances when the vehicle is parked on a double yellow line or causing a health and safety issue. It said that it was likely that it will not uphold the complaint unless the resident provided further information.
The resident contacted the Service on 4 May 2021. They reiterated that they believed that bays were available for the landlord to change one to a disabled bay. They noted the landlord in response to the complaint, said that they had requested a designated bay not a disabled bay, and this was incorrect. The resident explained that while they have disabled parking badge, they have to park over 250 metres away from their property. They stated that some residents had not been written to about the consultation in relation to the introduction of the disabled bay. The resident said that they wanted details of the consultation the landlord carried out, including the process, statistics, and the criteria. They said that they had made between 6-7 calls to PCM and they informed that they had not received any calls from the landlord.
After the resident’s contact, this service wrote to the landlord with the information they provided during their call on 4 May 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 May 2021 and said that it would provide a response to the matter of the parking arrangements in its stage two response. The landlord said that the information it requested from the resident in its pre decision to the stage two complaint, had not been provided and asked the resident to provide this by 11 May 2021.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It confirmed that it had not received any of the further information it requested from the resident. The landlord reiterated its position as set out in its pre decision response, dated 23 April 2021 and did not uphold the complaint.
On 18 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it could allocate them a designated space in the car park. It asked that the resident chose one of the bays so that it could allocate and mark this. It reiterated that PCM offer a grace period while a driver loads and unloads their vehicle but this would not be possible where the vehicle is parked on a double yellow line or causing a health and safety risk.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 June 2021, to advise that they wanted a disabled parking space and did not wish to accept its alternative offer of a designated allocated parking space. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2020 confirming it could not offer the disabled bay but said if the resident changed their mind and wished to accept the offer of a designated parking bay instead, they could contact the landlord again so that it could review this.

Assessment and findings

This investigation is focused on the landlord’s responses to the parking charge and the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay as these are matters that were raised as a formal complaint in March 2021. Within the evidence provided in relation to this complaint, there has been mention of longstanding repair issues. The Ombudsman investigated a complaint about these repairs in November 2021, under reference 201912748 and therefore these repairs will not be considered in this investigation. This Service understands there is ongoing communication between the parties about the repairs since the determination in November 2021.

The landlord’s response to parking fine the resident received from Parking Control Management

In the landlord’s letter to the resident in July 2019 about the introduction of the parking enforcement service, it confirmed the terms and conditions of the parking arrangements. This stated that residents have to display a valid permit in the windscreen of the vehicle at all times and park fully within the confines of a marked bay.
The letter was sent with a copy of the car park plan confirming the bays that the residents could use to park. It explicitly stated that vehicles should not park on the double yellow lines or they will receive a penalty charge. The landlord also said in the letter that it had no jurisdiction over enforced vehicles and would not under any circumstance, act as a mediator in cases concerning enforcement action.
It is also noted in the landlord’s car parking policy and car parking permits procedure, that appeals against enforcement action taken by its parking contractor, in this case PCM, must be made directly to the contractor.
In discussion with this Service, the resident advised that they made several calls to the landlord about the parking charge, between November 2020 and February 2021. They indicated that at the time the calls were made, there was a lack of response and they subsequently contacted PCM.
This Service has not seen evidence of the contact referred to by the resident between November 2020 and February 2021, apart from the contact with the landlord on 7 December 2020 about the parking charge. The landlord advised the resident to contact PCM directly to appeal the charge. The landlord maintained its position when it responded to the resident’s representative about the matter and when it provided its response to the formal complaint.
The landlord’s response was consistent with its policies and procedure and the information it provided to residents in 2019, when it introduced the parking enforcement service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a disabled parking bay

When the resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 24 December 2020, they advised that the resident had raised concern about the lack of parking for disabled people and asked what provisions the landlord would make for this.
In response, the landlord agreed to consult residents about the introduction of a disabled parking bay and did do so on 13 January 2021. It then decided that it would not introduce the disabled bay on the basis of the feedback it received. Its car parking policy explains that where an existing scheme is in place, a review of the current provisions could be requested where a substantial number of residents contact the landlord or, a petition is made by more than fifty percent of those affected.
The landlord confirmed that introducing a disabled bay would impact the availability of bays in the car park, thus affecting all residents who currently use it. It was appropriate that it consult all residents before deciding. It said that it did not receive a majority vote for the disabled bay, which understandably was upsetting for the resident but, the decision not to introduce the disabled bay was supported by the feedback and allowed for by its policy which indicates any new proposal must be supported by the majority of residents.
In relation to the request for the double yellow lines to be pushed back, the resident’s representative indicated that the lines had recently been extended however, it is not clear when this was.
The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with an image of the car park. The image provided confirm that the double yellow lines lead from a single lane access road to the entrance of the car park, and continue up to a bin store area. The landlord’s explanation that the lines could not be pushed back for the health and safety of the residents and access requirements is reasonable. Given there is a single lane, there is no possibility for a parking space to be provided on the access road to the car park, as no vehicles could pass either side of a car parked on this path.
Furthermore, this Service has been provided with the title deed of the car park. This confirms that within the car park the landlord own the ten parking bays accessible to its residents. With the exception of the bays owned by the housing association who shares the car park, the remainder of land including the access road, is marked a right of way and communal to both landowners. The landlord could not therefore introduce an additional parking space, as it jointly owns the land with another housing association and would need the agreement of the co-owner to make any changes.
In the formal complaint, the resident expressed the difficulty they had with loading and unloading their vehicle due to the distance between the car park and the entrance of the property. They said that they believed that the number of residents who had vehicles, was less than the number of bays available. They also indicated that they had been informed it was a £10 charge for the permit. As well as this, the resident had asked for details of who the landlord had contacted about the charge and details of the consultation carried out, including the feedback it received.
In response to the formal complaint, the landlord clarified the number of residents it had and said that its records showed that all 10 bays were being used by residents who had been issued permits. It asked the resident for details about who had informed them about the £10 charge for the permit and details of the payment, if the resident had paid it. The resident did not provide the information therefore, it was reasonable that it could not investigate this point further.
The landlord provided the resident with the communications it had with them and their representative about the charge but, did not provide the resident with the statistics of the feedback it received from the consultation. It is not clear why the landlord did not provide this to the resident as it may have been helpful to do so as it demonstrated that the landlord was acting on the basis of the feedback it received.
In light of the fact that it would not be creating a disabled parking bay, the landlord said that it could see whether it was able to give the resident a designated parking bay and later confirmed to the resident on 22 June 2021, that it could offer this. It offered the resident the option of choosing the specific bay from the ten available to its residents. While the resident has declined this, the offer was reasonable as a way of resolution. The landlord also confirmed that the disabled parking bay would not have been for the exclusive use for the resident as any person with a disabled badge could park there. By offering the resident the option of a designated bay, the resident was given the opportunity to choose a bay, closest to the entrance of the property, which was a reasonable way of trying to assist the difficulty they noted they had with the distance between the car park and the property entrance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the parking fine the resident received from Parking Control Management (PCM).
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a designated disabled parking bay.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the parking charge in line with its policy and provided the resident with appropriate information on how they could appeal this. It explored the possibility of introducing the disabled bay and when it was unable to offer this, it agreed to offer the resident a designated bay of choice within the car park that they could use exclusively.
While this is not what the resident specifically requested, it goes some way in offering the resident a resolution to their concern about the distance from the car park to the property entrance.
The landlord provided the resident with a thorough response, and detailed its position on the charge and what steps it took to consider their request for a disabled parking bay. And it offered the resident a reasonable alternative.