| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Estate services, Tenancy management |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Following consultation with residents the landlord decided to introduce parking restrictions at Mr M’s estate. Enforcement action was due to start on 12 January 2008. It wrote to all residents and leafleted homes and vehicles in advance about the arrangements as they were a change from its previous practice.
On 8 January 2008 the landlord left Mr M a message that his permit was ready. Although he went to collect it from the office the next day it had already been posted to his home the previous evening. On the 11th Royal Mail then left a note that he would need to collect the letter because insufficient postage had been paid. However, he was unable to do so until the 13th by which time the parking contractor had already clamped and towed his car; costing Mr M £415 to retrieve.
When Mr M complained the landlord apologised for failing to pay the correct postage and offered to reimburse the correct postage (£2); it also offered him £50 as a goodwill gesture. Nonetheless the review panel concluded that the landlord ‘did all that they could reasonably have done to ensure that all residents …received their parking permits prior to commencement of enforcement.’ It also noted that the complainant’s application had been received only 8 days before enforcement action started and that Mr M had had the option of moving his car until he had collected his permit.
The panel also noted too that the parking contractor did not appear to have followed its procedure and suggested that Mr M ask for evidence of contractor’s actions against the procedure. There was no indication that Mr M did so. Clearly it would depend on the circumstances but if the contractor had disregarded the agreed procedure it would be appropriate for the landlord (as the other party to the contract) to offer some support to an individual tenant disadvantaged by such a breach.
Mr M’s representative provided the Ombudsman with copies of the landlord’s emails in relation to possible reimbursement of another resident with a similar complaint. Mr M queried whether this was discriminatory. In response the landlord confirmed that another organisation within its Group structure had dealt with a complaint from a leaseholder on the same estate whose car had also been removed by the parking contractor. In response it arranged for the car to be returned without cost to it or the leaseholder and made an offer of compensation. This investigation did not see full details of that incident as it is not one the Ombudsman was asked to investigate. Nonetheless on the information provided there were marked differences from the circumstances of Mr M’s complaint and therefore no evidence that he was treated unfairly in comparison to another resident.
Determination
Taken altogether the landlord’s actions represented a fair and proportionate response to Mr M’s complaint. The parking restrictions were introduced following consultation with residents and it took steps to ensure they were fully aware of the start date for enforcement action.
Mr M’s permit was produced promptly despite being requested so close to the deadline and he was told it was available for collection. When he did not attend or contact the landlord on the 8th it was posted to him by recorded delivery the day before enforcement action started. Mr M knew that he would not have the permit in time because he could not get to the Post Office until the 13th. Nonetheless, he did not take steps to move the car as a precaution. The landlord has apologised for the postage problems, reimbursed the cost and offered him a goodwill payment of £50; there are no grounds for this Service to require further redress.