The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Sovereign Network Homes (202003089)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003089

Network Homes Limited

15 June 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. The resident complained about:
    1. The division of the rear garden to the property.
    2. The landlord’s response to their request that they be granted possession of their neighbour’s garden.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The property is a flat with access to a rear garden which has been split in two, the resident has use of one half, their neighbour has use of the other half. From information this Service has seen, a decision was made several years ago between the existing tenants and the landlord to split the rear garden. There appears to be no dispute between the parties to this complaint that this happened.
  2. The resident’s tenancy commenced in November 2019 and the landlord has confirmed that the garden was split before the current resident’s tenancy was accepted.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reports that they made enquiry to the landlord about annexing their neighbour’s share of the rear garden. They explained that they understood that their tenancy granted this. It is not clear when exactly the enquiry was raised, but we have seen evidence that this was as early as June 2020.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response to their enquiry, on 15 July 2020.
  3. The landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint on 29 July 2020. It confirmed that:
    1. It attended the property and found that the resident and their neighbour had exclusive access to their own gardens.
    2. It would seek advice from its legal team, as the resident had mentioned the agreement to split the garden into two, was between the residents at the property prior to their tenancy start date in November 2019.
  4. The landlord issued a follow up response to the resident on 26 August 2020. It said that the resident’s tenancy agreement stated the property is with the use of their own garden and it was satisfied that this was the case.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint as they disagreed with the landlord’s position. They said that they did not believe they were subject to the agreement to split the garden, as it was made before they started their tenancy.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 24 September 2020. It upheld its decision at stage one and confirmed:
    1. That the resident’s tenancy states that they would have access to their own garden and did not state that the garden consisted of the entire rear garden.
    2. The tenant and their neighbour each had a private garden with exclusive access.
    3. It had checked their neighbour’s tenancy agreement and found a difference in wording regarding the garden however, this was due to the differing age and type of agreements the two residents had.
  7. The resident referred their complaint to this Service as they remained unhappy with the outcome.

Reasons

Complaint about the decision to split the rear garden between two properties

  1. From the information provided by both parties, the decision to split the garden was made between the resident’s neighbour, the landlord, and the previous tenant of the resident’s property. There is no evidence to suggest that the garden was in any other configuration when the resident viewed and accepted the property. This decision could not have had an adverse effect upon the resident’s occupation of their property as it occurred before their tenancy commenced; and the resident accepted the property and garden as laid out after the change was made.

Complaint about the garden as set out in the tenancy agreement

  1. When the resident requested that their neighbour’s garden be assigned to them, they explained that their tenancy sets out that the property will have its own garden, which they understood included their neighbour’s garden. The landlord explained that the tenancy sets out that the garden provided to the resident is compliant with the terms of the tenancy.
  2. This Service cannot assess a dispute about the meaning of terms in a tenancy agreement, nor can it issue a binding decision such matters. This would be better placed with the courts who have the authority to do so.
  3. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the resident’s complaint.