Hyde Housing Association Limited (202202404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202404

Hyde Housing Association Limited

6 February 2024

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property and a temporary decant to carry out the works.
2. The landlord’s claim that the resident is liable for rent on the decant property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

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.

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

Summary of events

It is evident that the resident has had long-standing concerns about repairs at the property dating back to at least 2015. In April 2016, the resident’s legal representative wrote to the landlord regarding outstanding repairs and a request for compensation. The legal representative referred to soundproofing, structural subsidence, cracks and mould.

On 19 December 2018, a ‘Letter Before Action’’ was sent to the landlord by the resident’s legal representative which again referred to soundproofing issues, cracks in the walls of the whole flat, a springy flooring and uneven floor, a leaning boundary wall in garden area and uneven floor boards in the whole flat.

On 8 March 2021, the landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident’s legal representative, advising that the landlord intended to claim for lost rental income covering the period that a temporary property was left empty whilst it was awaiting a response from the resident. The estimated amount the landlord advised that it would be seeking was £5,902.

On 27 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to say that as she had not made an acceptable arrangement to repay her arrears, a possession hearing had been listed to take place at court on 5 September 2022. The resident was advised that she must attend the hearing. The hearing took place on 5 September 2022, and the resident was ordered to give possession of the property on or before 19 September 2022.

The resident submitted a defence and counter claim against the landlord and on 10 November 2022, the landlord submitted its response to that claim. The response denied the alleged disrepair and soundproofing issues and alleged that the resident not being prepared to move out meant that the temporary decant could not go ahead. This included a claim for special damages in respect of the loss of rent on the decant property, which it estimated to be £5,902.

On 20 February 2023, the court heard the resident’s application for a suspended warrant/set aside judgement/claim for disrepair. The resident was in attendance with her legal representative. The judge suspended the warrant on the condition that the resident make a monthly payment of an agreed amount.

On 3 July 2023, the resident’s legal representative submitted an Amended Particulars of claim to the court, which listed the particulars of breaches as:
1. Cracks in the walls throughout the property.
2. Uneven floorboards throughout the property, which were in a poor state of repair and several required replacing.
3. The flooring throughout the property being springy and moved.
4. There being damage to the moulding/beading around the entrance door to the property.
5. The glazing of the door to the property being defective.
6. The boundary wall in the garden leaning.
7. The property having suffered from damp and mould since 2017.

The claim went on to describe the particulars of inconvenience and distress as:
1. The resident having to live in damp conditions causing a risk to her health.
2. The resident being embarrassed and ashamed about the appearance of the property.
3. The resident being frustrated by the failure of the landlord to remedy the defects and by the ineffectiveness of the repair work which had been carried out.
4. The resident having been signed off work due to the stress the disrepair situation had caused her.
5. The state of the floor in the property had created a risk of injury to the resident.
The resident claimed that the landlord should remedy the outstanding defects and pay damages in excess of £20,000 for the distress and inconvenience arising from its failure to meet repairing obligations.

On 20 December 2023, the landlord advised this Service that the this matter was currently ongoing at court, with the latest hearing being held on 14 December 2023.

Reasons

Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

In this case, the disrepair to the resident’s property, the issues with the decant and the landlord’s claim that the resident is liable for rent on the decant property are all included in the documents that have been submitted to the court. As a result, I am satisfied that the resident has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those legal proceedings.

This means that under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme both of the following complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider further:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her property and a temporary decant to carry out the works.
2. The landlord’s claim that the resident is liable for rent on the decant property.