Barnet Council (202105043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105043

Barnet Council

8 March 2022

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 concerns whether the resident is entitled to use of a shed.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
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

4. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in their property since 2006. The resident explains that since the start of their tenancy, they had use of a storage shed.
5. In 2021, the landlord demolished the sheds and rebuilt them. The resident expected to be allocated one of the new sheds upon their completion, however, this did not happen.
6. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. They explained it was unfair to demolish a shed they had use of and not allocate one of the sheds built in its place.
7. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 16 February 2022. It acknowledged that the loss of the shed would be disappointing for the resident. The landlord informed the resident that the newly built sheds were only allocated to leaseholders whose lease agreements included a shed.  It explained that the resident’s tenancy agreement did not provide for the use of the shed, therefore it did not have to provide them with one.
8. The resident brought their complaint to this Service. They explained that it was unfair that the landlord had not provided them with a shed and, as an outcome to their complaint, wished to be granted use of one.

Reasons

9. Paragraph 39 (i) and (r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that:

39 “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion;”

(i) “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

(r) “concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide”

10. That the resident had use of a shed prior to their demolition is not in dispute.
11. The resident’s position is that having use of a shed prior to their demolition entitles them to one of the replacements. The landlord’s position is that the resident was never entitled to use of a shed, therefore it has no obligation to replace the shed that was demolished.
12. In this case, the complaint is more complicated than simply assessing the terms of the tenancy, as the resident believes that their historic use of a shed is something that should be considered when assessing their tenancy rights. To resolve the complaint, the resident wants the landlord to provide them with use of a shed.
13. Disputes about the meaning of a tenancy agreement are a matter for a Court or Tribunal to consider. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint.
14. As the Ombudsman cannot determine whether or not the resident is entitled to use of a shed, it follows that we cannot therefore order the landlord to provide one.