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

One Vision Housing Limited (202205697)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205697

One Vision Housing Limited

15 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.

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.

 

  1. 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. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. He occupies a 1-bedroom, semi-detached bungalow with his wife.
  2. The resident submitted a RTA application to the landlord on 1 November 2022, in which he defined ‘the property’ as inclusive of the ‘front, side and rear garden’. Following a valuation of the property, the landlord issued an offer notice to the resident on 14 February 2022. It then retracted this and issued a revised offer on 13 May 2022, at a reduced price, excluding the front and rear gardens which it said were communal.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2022. He said the housing officer had told him the gardens were included when the property was let to him. He expressed his belief that, by not allowing the gardens to be included in the sale, the landlord was discriminating against him. He felt that, based on his disabilities, he required exclusive access to the outside areas.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 July 2022, when it said the gardens had not been let as part of the tenancy and, as the lands were communal, any sale would cause a direct infringement on the rights of other residents.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint and the landlord issued its final response on 26 August 2022. It did not uphold the complaint and reiterated its position that the land was communal and it did not believe it had discriminated against the resident.
  6. The resident subsequently instructed a solicitor and notified the landlord that he intended to pursue the matter through the county court. The landlord notified this Service in April 2024, that a ‘costs and case management conference’ had been scheduled for the county court on 17 May 2024. The resident contests that this hearing relates to the landlord’s handling of his RTA application, but is a claim for disability discrimination.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

 

  1. The resident has contested the interpretation of the demise as outlined in the tenancy agreement. It is beyond the remit and expertise of this Service to make a legally binding decision on how the occupancy agreement should be interpreted and what can reasonably be considered the boundaries of the property. This is a decision that only a court can make.

 

  1. The resident also considers that, should the land not be included in the conveyance, this raises concerns about access to the property, impacting its value, and his ability to insure and mortgage it. Again, it is not within the remit and expertise of this Service to consider the wider legal and practical implications should the land be omitted from his tenancy or the title. These are matters which would be more effectively considered by the courts.

 

  1. Furthermore, it is not appropriate for this Service to determine or instruct that the land is included in the sale of the property. In accordance with paragraph 42(o) of the Scheme, the resident is ultimately seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The complaint is, therefore, also outside of jurisdiction on this basis.
  2. The resident has alleged that, in failing to include the gardens in the conveyance it has discriminated against him. The Ombudsman understands that the resident is bringing a disability discrimination claim against the landlord, due to be heard in May 2024. Under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint where the complainant has the opportunity to raise the matter as part of legal proceedings. The Ombudsman considers the upcoming hearing a more appropriate domain for this aspect of the complaint to be considered and it is outside of jurisdiction on these grounds.
  3. This Service has considered whether there was any part of the complaint it could investigate, such as whether the landlord informed the resident of the property boundaries upon sign–up. However, even if we were to establish that the landlord was not sufficiently clear, this would not address the substantive matter of the resident’s complaint or allow for the desired outcome. For this reason, there are no issues the Ombudsman considers appropriate for investigation by this Service.