| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Complaint handling, Home ownership and leasehold, Tenancy management |
| Determination: | Maladministration |
| Tenure: | Shared owner |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Mr L is a shared owner in a new development. He complained on behalf of eight leaseholders about parking provision. The complaints were that the landlord did not enforce the parking scheme in place when he bought his lease and later withdrew his allocated parking space.
On buying his lease Mr L also bought a £100 annual permit for one of the limited number of parking bays available at the development. The landlord informed leaseholders that once the development was fully occupied, it would employ contractors to police the parking.
It is evident that the leaseholders who were allocated bays had difficulty with other residents parking in their bays. The problems became more acute when drivers using the nearby Underground station began to park on the development.
When permits for the first year expired, the landlord did not accept payment for replacements, informing leaseholders that parking arrangements were not yet finalised. It then raised the parking arrangements at the leaseholders’ forum and distributed a survey to leaseholders asking for their views on options to manage the limited parking at the development. The most popular option was to allocate one parking space per household. The landlord decided to adopt this. It accordingly informed leaseholders who had permits under the previous scheme that the agreements under which they were allocated parking bays were to be ended. A new permit scheme was then introduced.
Mr L’s lease does not refer to parking provision. There was no formal parking-space agreement setting out terms and conditions; Mr L had received only a letter. The evidence suggested that Mr L had a licence to occupy the parking space.
The Housing Corporation’s Residents’ Charter states that RSLs should ensure that: “All information should be in clear language and easy to read. It should be provided in different ways to make sure it is meaningful and can be understood by all residents.” To comply with this guidance the landlord should have given Mr L written terms and conditions of the parking agreement, including how it could be ended. He would then have clearly understood the nature of the agreement he was making and that the parking space may not remain for his exclusive use throughout his time there. The landlord acknowledged as much during its complaints process.
Mr L claims he was misled about parking arrangements during the sales process. He says that he and other leaseholders considered provision of parking to be a condition of sale rather than a perk and that he would not have bought the lease without it.
The Chartered Institute of Housing’s good practice guide to marketing shared ownership schemes states that: “In order to avoid any misrepresentation, clear responsibilities between development and marketing teams must be established...”.
During the sales process, Mr L was given little written information about parking arrangements. Although the development’s sales brochure said parking was “available”, it gave no more details. It would be reasonable to expect the landlord to provide fuller information about parking during the sales process. Even in the pre-sale letters about parking, the landlord did not say that the parking arrangement could end.
Determination
The landlord acknowledged these failings during its complaints process and offered the leaseholders substantial redress, including compensation and a refund of all direct costs incurred. As the landlord was entitled to withdraw the original parking agreement, and as it fully admitted its service failings and offered Mr L substantial redress, we found no maladministration in relation to these aspects of his complaint. We also took into account Mr L’s responsibility as a leaseholder to make adequate enquiries and take advice about his rights, before buying the lease.
We did find maladministration because the landlord did not properly consult residents on the change in policy.
The Chartered Institute of Housing’s good practice guide to tenants’ rights states that: “Consultation is about advising tenants what you intend to do, and asking them what they think about it.”
There was lack of clarity in the consultation process in that the landlord failed to inform residents there were allocated bays that would be lost if the new parking scheme came in. Mr L and the other leaseholders were also unclear whether the landlord intended to withdraw their bays, and the landlord failed to respond to specific questions about this. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings during the formal complaints process.
We ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to each of the leaseholders for inconvenience and distress caused by the maladministration. We also made orders about future consultation exercises and made recommendations about better decision making on parking arrangements for new residential developments.