| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Estate services, Sheltered housing, Tenancy management |
| Determination: | No maladministration (recommendations) |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Mrs G was an assured tenant of a flat in a sheltered scheme. She complained when her landlord removed signs in the scheme car park that designated a specific parking space to her. She also claimed that the landlord did not take her disability into account when considering her parking need.
The existing arrangement for parking dated from 1999 when tenants agreed with the then scheme manager that spaces would be allocated to specific tenants. Individual signs were bought and installed. There was no evidence that this was a formal arrangement.
The landlord wanted to change the arrangement after other tenants complained that the allocation was unfair. It claimed that it was not required to provide designated parking and stated that parking should be on a first-come, first-served basis.
Mrs G complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s decision and its failure to properly consult her about the change. Our investigation found that the change in parking arrangements brought practice in line with the policy outlined in the tenants’ handbook. We also found that the landlord met its limited obligation to consult Mrs G about a change to an informal agreement. Although the complainant was unhappy with the way a consultation meeting with tenants was conducted, we considered the landlord had adequately discharged its duty.
Determination
In interpreting their consultation obligations, landlords are entitled to decide how they should consult, by taking into account all relevant factors and applying professional judgment in a reasonable way. Given the guidance in the tenants' handbook and the landlord’s view that a first-come, first-served arrangement would be fair, it was reasonable for the landlord to decide that a meeting with tenants to discuss the changes was sufficient. We noted that even if the landlord had engaged in further formal consultation, it would not necessarily have had to abide by the results. We also noted that it would have been in a stronger position had it kept a record of the meeting and clearly informed tenants about the proceedings and outcome.
We found no maladministration in relation to this part of the complaint.
The tenants' handbook stated that: "In many schemes, some spaces may be labelled as reserved for parking by disabled people." Mrs G told the Ombudsman that she is registered disabled and complained about the landlord’s refusal to label spaces for parking by disabled people.
The landlord had no guidance to clarify the circumstances in which it should create disabled car-parking spaces. The relevant law at the time of the complaint was the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, amended 2005. Under this, the landlord had a duty to change practices, policies or procedures that might discriminate against a disabled person. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether failure to provide disabled car-parking spaces as a policy matter is in itself discriminatory.
The legislation also provides for those who control premises to take "reasonable steps" to provide auxiliary aids or services that would, according to the guidance from the Disability Rights Commission (its responsibility for helping secure civil rights for disabled people was transferred to the new Equality and Human Rights Commission on 1 October 2007) "…enable or make it easier for [a disabled person] to enjoy the premises or make use of a benefit or facility…and it would be impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to rent/enjoy the premises if it were not provided…". The law requires provision of signs or notices as an auxiliary aid or notice.
The landlord confirmed that it would not designate car-parking spaces for disabled people at the scheme. Although the "limited number of spaces" was mentioned, the landlord did not justify its decision or explain why it would not have been "reasonably practicable". It could for example, have referred to the number of people registered disabled at the scheme, the exact number of spaces in the car park and any need for open access. The landlord also failed to indicate whether it had considered the complainant’s specific disability and her individual circumstances, and the extent to which these affected her use of the property. This would appear to contradict the requirement that landlords must have systems in place to record their tenants' needs.
Had there been guidance on car-parking spaces for disabled people, it may have helped the landlord resolve the complaint. The landlord has since drafted a car-parking policy. The landlord will need to bear in mind the Disability Discrimination Act 2005, which came into effect in 2006. It says that, provided certain conditions are met, landlords and managers of let premises and premises that are to be let must make reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
There was no policy obliging the landlord to allocate disabled parking spaces at the scheme. However, we found there was maladministration because the landlord did not consider the specific situation at the scheme, nor did it explain to Mrs G why it was not reasonably practicable to provide disabled parking spaces there. This was all the more important given the lack of guidance and the fact that other sheltered schemes in the area had designated parking for disabled people.
We ordered the landlord to explain and justify its decisions to the complainant. We also made recommendations for implementing the new car-parking policy.