London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202208759)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208759

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circ*mstances 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:
1. response to the resident’s concerns regarding the allocation and size of parking spaces;
2. handling of the resident’s complaints concerning maintenance and refurbishment works.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circ*mstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

f) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

The resident told the landlord that she believed that the space in the communal car park that corresponded to her property number, was allocated for her exclusive use under the terms of her lease. The resident referred the landlord to clauses within her lease that she believed supported this, including, “The right to park one vehicle in the car parking space allocated to the leaseholder by the landlord from time to time (if any)”.
Following the landlord’s refurbishment of the car park, the resident expressed her further belief that the reduced size of some of the new parking spaces, along with the issues over parking space allocation, put the landlord in breach of the terms of her lease. She stated that she was obtaining legal advice, but that she anticipated that the landlord would need to resolve the matter with, “a financial settlement relevant to the loss of area..”.
The landlord advised the resident that under the terms of her lease, parking spaces were not demised to individual flats. The landlord referred to clauses within the resident’s lease that it believed supported this, including, “…there shall be no obligation on the part of the landlord to allocate any parking space for use by the leaseholder”.
The landlord further referred the resident to the clauses within her lease that it said, as the freeholder, gave it the right to change the common parts with no loss of amenity. With reference to the resident’s concerns about parking space sizes, the landlord said that the car park still had the 16 spaces it was originally built with, and denied that it had acted in breach of her lease. These matters remained in dispute at the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the allocation and size of parking spaces is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
It is not the role of this Service to interpret the terms of a legal contract. It is therefore the view of the Ombudsman that this matter would be more appropriately considered by the courts. Furthermore, the decisions of the courts are legally binding, whereas the Ombudsman’s decisions are not.
While the complaint regarding parking space allocation and size is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the parties’ communications from this period have been referred to in other sections of this report in order to provide relevant context.

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of her property since 28 September 2018. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a block of 16 flats with a communal car park. The landlord is a housing association.
Prior to the resident’s complaint the landlord undertook a major refurbishment of the car park. Alternative parking arrangements were made and qualifying leaseholders, including the resident, were paid £250 per month compensation for the duration of the works.

Complaint policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a 2 stage process. It said that it would aim to provide a full response to complaints with 10 and 20 working days, at stages 1 and 2 respectively.
The policy said that where the landlord was unable to meet those timescales, it would explain the reasons why to the resident, and write to them again within a further 10 working days.

Compensation procedure

The procedure stated that compensation should be considered where the landlord had not met the timeframes of its complaint policy, and the resident had spent time and effort, or experienced inconvenience or distress.
It said that in these circ*mstances, the calculation of any compensation award should consider the length of its complaint handling delay, and its impact on the resident. It stated that a short delay should be considered low impact, a 1 month delay medium impact, and a 3 month delay high impact. It provided payment level guidance as follows:
1. £10 to £50 – low impact;
2. £50 to £100 – medium impact;
3. £100 to £200 – high impact.

Summary of events

On 20 November 2021 the resident raised her concerns to the landlord about the ongoing car park refurbishment, and the impact her uncovered parking space could have on her property value. The resident queried whether the upkeep of the communal green was still being undertaken, and the standard of works when it was. She also provided the landlord with her proposals for having communal closed circuit television (CCTV) installed, and the works quotations she had received for it.
On 7 December 2022 the landlord told the resident that its inspection the previous day had confirmed that the grass had been maintained. It said that its contractor had been attending fortnightly, but had been asked to undertake a quality inspection. It advised that the resident’s car park concerns had been passed to the appropriate person, and it would shortly provide a car park update to all residents. It thanked the resident for her CCTV quotation, and advised her of the next steps.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the leaseholders of the block including the resident, and advised that the car park works were almost complete. It said that a handover date was not yet known, and that residents should continue with the alternative parking arrangements. It said that a final pro-rata payment of the monthly £250 compensation would be made in January 2022, once the car park handover date was confirmed. It stated that parking spaces were not demised to individual flats, and that parking was on a first come first serve basis.
On 10 December 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, which this Service has not seen a copy of. On 19 December 2021 the resident expressed her views regarding the allocation of parking spaces, and raised her concerns regarding the car park security, gate, lighting, and parking space sizes. She raised her further concerns about the standard of maintenance undertaken to the communal green. She stated that she was, “going to let this go”, but asked that the landlord consult with residents to appoint a new grounds maintenance contractor. She highlighted the unfairness of a parking fine she had received while using the car park. She queried the next steps that the landlord had advised regarding her CCTV proposal.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response, which it said was also in reply to her email from the previous day. The landlord provided a diagram of the car park plan, and responded to the resident’s points regarding parking allocation under the terms of the lease. The landlord’s further points were as follows:
1. It confirmed that the resident would not be liable for the parking fine she had received, and explained how it would resolve this.
2. It explained the setup of the car park lighting, and the changes it had asked its contractor to make in response to resident feedback.
3. It stated that it had not received requests from leaseholders for an automatic barrier, which it said would be expensive and impact the service charge. It said that it was progressing the requests made by leaseholders for a padlocked gate.
4. It advised that it had passed the resident’s comments to its grounds maintenance contractor, and that it would soon be consulting with leaseholders regarding procuring new contracts.
5. It clarified the necessary next steps regarding the resident’s CCTV quotation.
6. It advised the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied, and that she could approach this Service at any time.
On 23 December the landlord confirmed to the resident that her parking ticket had been cancelled. The resident replied expressing her appreciation.
On 31 January 2022 the landlord sent the resident a ‘section 20’ consultation letter regarding the renewal of its grounds and tree maintenance contracts.
On 28 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. Along with her continued dissatisfaction regarding the allocation and size of parking spaces, the resident reiterated her concerns regarding the lack of barriers, CCTV, lighting, and other security measures. She said that the bin store door had been in poor condition for a long time. She said that the landlord had a new building manager for the block, but that there had been virtually no communication.
On 10 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the leaseholders of the block, including the resident, to confirm that the handover of the car park had been completed. The key points were as follows:
1. It explained that the handover had been completed on 10 January 2022, and apologised that it had not informed residents that the car park could be used again.
2. It said that in recognition, each resident would be sent £500 to cover January and February 2022.
3. It advised that the local authority was investigating the issues with the car park lights, and that a padlock had been fitted to the car park gate, with keys issued to all residents.
On 16 March 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request email sent on 28 February 2022 (the landlord’s email did not specifically state that it was a stage 2 complaint response, but it has subsequently confirmed to this Service that it was intended as such). Aside from responding to the resident’s belief that it was in breach of her lease, the landlord’s key points were as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the local authority had incorrectly numbered the parking spaces, and that it had been asked to rectify it.
2. It said that the communal bins store door had been fixed, but that it was happy to visit and discuss possible improvements to the bin and bicycle stores.
3. It said that it had taken on board the resident’s comments regarding the absence of a property manager. It described the restructuring of its frontline services that it was undertaking to improve this.
On 3 May 2022 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. Aside from those matters found to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, the resident’s key points were as follows:
1. She stated that the numbering of the parking spaces was still incorrect. She asked that the landlord complete and resolve the car park issues, and resume paying leaseholders the monthly compensation until the issues were resolved.
2. She attributed criminal and antisocial behaviour (ASB) in the car park and common grounds to the landlord’s failure to provide sufficient security and upkeep. She asked that security measures such as CCTV and an automatic gate be installed, and that maintenance of the bin store and other communal parts be undertaken.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The key points were as follows:
1. It explained the cause of the administrative confusion that had delayed it telling leaseholders that the car park had been handed over. It said that residents had been free to use the car park since 10 March 2022. It confirmed and that it had offered goodwill payments to cover January and February 2022, and that no further compensation was payable.
2. It explained the reasons the parking spaces had been incorrectly numbered. It said that the works to resolve this had been postponed at the end of April 2022, due to contractor staff absence, but would be rearranged.
3. It said that the Police crime prevention officer had confirmed that the bicycle store was adequate, but had made some recommendations that the landlord was in the process of implementing.
4. It stated that it would send a consultation paper to leaseholders regarding the security and estate improvement issues the resident had raised.
On 18 May 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She reiterated all of her points from stage 1. The landlord replied the same day, and confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2 of its process.
On 19 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord when she could expect a response to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord replied the following day, and apologised that the resident had not had a response. It said that its staff shortage meant that it was managing a backlog of cases, but that it had prompted its team to the review the resident’s complaint.
On 30 July 2022 this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint,.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint, and said that it had tried to call her to discuss it. It asked that she advise a convenient time if she wished to do this. The resident replied the following day, and referred the landlord to the details available in her previous emails.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which it apologised for being delayed. The landlord’s response summarised the resident’s complaint and related events. It said that it had reviewed its stage 1 findings, which it had upheld. The key additional points of the landlord’s stage 2 response were as follows:
1. It stated that on 16 May 2022 it had issued a consultation paper regarding potential improvements to leaseholders. It said that the outcomes were based on the majority vote, and included the following:
  1. Parking – number the spaces in line with flat numbers, and no parking control services.
  2. CCTV – dummy cameras to be installed without charge.
  3. Bin store door – to be adjusted to a full length wooden door with a new lock.
  4. Car park gate – obtain costings for an automatic gate, which would be service chargeable.
2. It acknowledged that the numbering of parking spaces was still outstanding, and said that it had chased the local authority to complete this work as soon as possible.
3. It offered the resident £200 compensation for her time, effort, inconvenience, distress, and its delayed stage 2 response.
4. It referred the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
On 31 August and 1 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord if each leaseholder of the block would receive £200 compensation, as she had made the complaint collectively. She asked why the landlord was intending to fit a wooden, rather than metal door to the bin store, which she said was not what she had asked for, and a waste of her money.
On 2 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that it had no evidence or indication that the complaint had been made collectively, and that its offer of compensation was only to her. The landlord confirmed that it was acting in line with the wishes of the majority of the leaseholders who had voted for the existing wooden bin store door to be adjusted to full length, and a new lock fitted, at no cost to them. The resident advised the landlord of her preferred method of compensation payment.

Assessment and findings

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all the circ*mstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint were, in the main, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However, the landlord failed to appropriately label its first stage 2 response, and there was a significant delay in it issuing its second. This was compounded by the landlord’s failure to proactively keep the resident informed of the delay, which would have further added to her frustration.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, and its £200 offer was in line with its compensation procedure, and our Remedies Guidance. It is the therefore the view of the Ombudsman that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints concerning maintenance and refurbishment works.
The resident made her original complaint on 10 December 2021, and the landlord responded within the timeframe of its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain its position on each of the points that the resident had raised. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise how it would resolve the resident’s parking ticket, which it did 3 days later. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach to which the resident expressed her gratitude.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 28 February 2022, and the landlord again responded within the timeframe of its policy. The landlord appropriately provided an update on the resident’s parking space numbering, and communal maintenance issues, and offered to visit to discuss potential communal area improvements. This demonstrated a willingness to be fair, and put things right. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s comments regarding its property manager, and its explanation of its plans to improve its frontline services, demonstrated its learning.
However, it was a failing that the landlord’s email to the resident on 16 March 2022, gave no indication that it represented its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord had appropriately advised the resident of her right to contact this Service at stage 1 of its process. Nevertheless, its failure to make clear to the resident that she had completed its complaint process, also meant that it failed to advise her of her right to refer her complaint to the Ombudsman. It is reasonable to conclude that this would have contributed to the resident feeling the need to effectively repeat her complaint in May 2022, which would have added to her time taken and frustration. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident made her further complaint to the landlord on 3 May 2022, and the landlord again responded within the timeframe of its policy. The resident raised further issues regarding the security and maintenance of the external communal areas, and the ASB that she said that this was contributing to. The landlord’s stage 1 response again appropriately responded to each of the resident’s points. Its advice regarding its implementation of the Police recommendations, and its intention to consult with the leaseholders, again demonstrated a resolution focused approach.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 18 May 2022, which the landlord acknowledged the same day. It was unreasonable that the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord then provided the resident with any further updates, until she chased it 21 working days later.
The landlord explained to the resident that the delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response was due to a backlog from staff shortages. However, in that instance, it would be expected that the landlord would have apologised, and proactively offered its explanation to the resident within the 20 working days stated in its policy, rather than await her contact. The landlord’s actions were therefore neither in line with its own policy, nor reasonable.
It was further unreasonable that it was only after the intervention of this Service, almost 6 weeks later, that the landlord progressed its stage 2 investigation of the resident’s complaint. The landlord did then act appropriately when it summarised its understanding of the resident’s complaint, on 2 August 2022, and offered the resident the opportunity to discuss it further.
The landlord’s stage 2 response, issued to the resident on 31 August 2022, was again largely in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. The landlord detailed the majority vote result of its consultation with leaseholders regarding communal maintenance, and parking security matters. This again demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to be fair.
Given the failings identified above, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in line with the ‘high impact’ guidelines of its procedure. As above, the landlord’s offer of compensation to the resident was also in line with our Remedies Guidance.
The Ombudsman published a report on 27 July 2023 detailing the findings of its special investigation of the landlord’s services. The report is available on our website, and made recommendations that the landlord has since implemented. The Ombudsman’s report and recommendations included reference to complaint handling failings similar to those identified in this report. As such, the Ombudsman has not made further complaint handling recommendations below.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the allocation and size of parking spaces is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaints concerning maintenance and refurbishment works.

Reasons

It is acknowledged that the resident will be disappointed that the primary matter of her complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, if the resident believes that the landlord has acted in breach of her lease, the courts could provide a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman cannot. The resident had indicated that she was seeking independent legal advice.
The landlord handled the resident’s original complaint in line with the Dispute resolution principles. However, it failed to make clear that its reply to her escalation request was its stage 2 response, or to refer her to the Ombudsman.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the delays at stage 2 of its process for her second complaint. It offered the resident compensation that was in line with its own procedure, and with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202208759) - Housing Ombudsman (2024)