Stevenage Borough Council (202013153)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013153

Stevenage Borough Council

1 July 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 response to the resident’s concerns of the misuse of parking facilities in his estate.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord which is the local authority. In November 2019 he requested a disabled parking bay be installed in his estate, which was agreed and installed in May 2020. The resident is a ‘Blue Badge’ holder.
3. On 13 July 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. He explained that there were two disabled bays on the estate, and that residents without blue badges were using them. He said the landlord had previously advised (it is unclear when) that it would speak to residents to inform them of the “correct use of the car park”, but never did. He suggested the landlord “bring in a private parking company” which would use “cameras and cctv with AI solutions” to monitor the parking facilities.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 22 July 2020. It explained that disabled bays were put in place on an “advisory” basis, and were not enforceable in residential areas. It also said it was unable to reserve bays for individuals. It said that it would address parking in its next residents’ newsletter. It explained that it did not have the resources to pay for a parking management scheme. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
5. On 11 August 2020 the resident escalated his complaint. He reiterated his suggestion of a private parking company.
6. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 17 September 2020. It reiterated that disabled bays were on an advisory basis, and were not enforceable. It said that it would monitor the level of complaints it received concerning the parking, and if it found a significant increase, it would consider a residents’ consultation about a possible parking permit scheme. It concluded by explaining how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
7. On 10 November 2020 the resident escalated his complaint on the telephone. The landlord’s call notes show that he repeated his concerns about other residents parking in the bays without blue badges. He also explained that when he finished work there were no available bays for him.
8. The landlord issued its stage three complaint response on 7 December 2020. It referenced several issues that are not relevant to this investigation. It referred the resident to its earlier explanations in its complaint responses about the bays being on an advisory basis, and not enforceable. It concluded by explaining how the resident could refer his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

9. The landlord in this case is also a local authority. The Housing Ombudsman has jurisdiction over local authorities only in regard to their housing management roles, functions, and actions. This report makes a distinction between landlord actions, and local authority actions.
10. In July 2020 the resident complained to the landlord that other residents, without blue badges, were using the disabled bays. He asked the landlord to take action in light of it, and suggested implementing a “private parking company”. The landlord explained that it did not have the resources available to fund such a scheme. This was not an unreasonable explanation as social landlords have a specific, and often limited budget. Decisions about how a landlord manages its properties are a landlord’s to make, and budgetary restrictions are one of the most important factors a landlord would need to take into account.
11. The local authority’s website states that members of the public with a blue badge can apply to have a disabled parking bay marked near their home. This is what the resident did, via the landlord. The website also clarifies that “disabled bays in residential areas are only provided as advisory ‘courtesy bays’ and are not enforceable by the civil parking enforcement officers”. However, the landlord’s tenancy conditions explain that residents “must comply” with its parking conditions, and not park “in a bay designated for blue badge holders without the required permit on display”.
12. The landlord repeatedly explained to the resident that the bays had an advisory status, and were not enforceable. As set out above, the local authority’s position concerning disabled bays differs to that of the landlord. Accordingly, it appears that when the landlord said the bays were advisory, it was speaking in its capacity as the local authority, rather than as a social housing landlord. As such, the landlord failed to acknowledge, and correctly relay the terms of its tenancy conditions.
13. In response to the resident’s concerns that other residents were breaching these conditions, the landlord said that it would raise the matter of parking in its newsletter, and consider a future residents’ panel about a possible parking permit scheme. However, given the emphasis in the tenancy conditions that residents must not use the disabled (i.e. blue badge) bays without a permit, this was an unreasonable response. There were other, more effective actions it could have taken to address the resident’s concerns. For example, it could presumably have asked him to report the number plates of those breaching the conditions of their tenancy, in order to gain sufficient evidence to support formal action.
14. Ultimately, it was poor practice for the landlord to have misunderstood, and miscommunicated its own tenancy conditions. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code encourages landlords to “deal with complaints on their merits”, and “consider all information and evidence carefully”. In the circumstances of this complaint, it is clear that the landlord failed to consider its own policies, and consequently failed to fully acknowledge the merits of the resident’s complaint, or handle it accordingly.

Determination (decision)

15. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

16. Although the landlord’s explanation for why it would not consider a private parking scheme was reasonable, it failed to acknowledge that parking in a disabled bay without the relevant permit was a breach of its tenancy conditions.

Orders and recommendations

17. The landlord is ordered to, within eight weeks of this report, review these findings and create an action plan which considers and complies with its parking management obligations, as set out in its tenancy conditions, in the circumstances being reported by the resident. On completion, this review must be shared with the resident and this Service.
18. The landlord is also ordered to pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience and frustrations caused by the failings identified in this report.
19. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when the payment has been made. The resident should contact this Service if payment has not been received by the due date.