Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

St Peter’s Saltley Housing Association Limited (202012286)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012286

St Peter’s Saltley Housing Association Limited

3 December 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the plastering works and his report of damage caused to his property by its contractors.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which ‘concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings’.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. Following rent enforcement action by the landlord, the resident issued a counterclaim in the County Court for disrepair on 11 February 2020.  The residents’ counter claim requested that the landlord remedy the disrepair, pay damages and costs. The elements of disrepair were described in the Scott Schedule which identified defective plasterwork and a missing floorboard.
  2. On 6 March 2020, the County Court ordered that the landlord’s claim for possession be adjourned on terms and the residents’ counter claim dated 11 February 2020 be stayed subject to the schedule below:

a.     the claimant agrees to undertake the necessary repairs to resolve the missing floorboard

b.     the claimant agrees to undertake the necessary repairs to resolve the defective plasterwork and to ensure cracks are remedied but with no requirement to redecorate these areas

c.      the works to be carried out by the claimant were in full and final settlement of any claim for disrepair at the property, up until the date of completion of such work.

  1. The landlord advised this Service that the work identified in the Scott Schedule was completed by its contractor on 26 May 2020.The resident complained to the landlord on 8 June 2020 about the plastering repairs and that damage had occurred to his bed and curtains while the work was underway at his property. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 15 June 2020, advising that the areas of work had been correctly carried out and acknowledged that he wished to discuss his concerns with his legal representative.
  2. The resident remained dissatisfied with the repair works and the landlord visited the property on 16 September 2020 to inspect the plaster repairs with an independent property surveyor. The landlord responded at the final stage of the complaints procedure on 21 September 2020 advising that the report from the independent property surveyor would be sent to his legal representatives and it would wait for their response.
  3. The landlord’s response to the resident on 9 October 2020, reiterated its position in relation to the complaint, confirmed it would not be taking any further action and it was waiting to hear from the resident’s legal representative.
  4. On 9 March 2021, the residents’ representative escalated the complaint to this Service on the grounds that the resident was dissatisfied with the repairs carried out by the landlord.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has determined that the residents’ claim falls outside of his jurisdiction as the resident is unhappy with the plastering repairs that were carried out as part of the Scott Schedule which arose from his disrepair claim. He has also said that damage occurred to his bed and curtains while the repairs were being carried out.
  2. The Scott Schedule identifies the defects and describes the repair work required to remedy the defective plasterwork to the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and hallway and to remedy the floorboard in the bedroom. The resident has expressed that he is unhappy with how the landlord has attempted to remedy the defects as detailed in the Scott Schedule.
  3. Evidence provided for this investigation show that the landlord was in correspondence with the residents’ legal representative during the complaints process and did not receive a response. Whilst it appears the resident is no longer instructing his solicitors it remains the case that the defects, he complained about, were included in his claim for disrepair and as such have been subject to legal proceedings. Therefore, he has also had the opportunity to pursue the standard of the repairs carried out and any related claim for damages as part of those proceedings.