Clarion Housing Association Limited (202012064)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012064

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 February 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 is about the information provided to the resident about car parking spaces, prior to signing his lease agreement. 

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, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident became a shared leaseholder of the property on 18 December 2019.The landlord is a freeholder, and the property is a house. 
  2. The resident brought a complaint to this Service on 17 January 2021. He said that before he bought a share in his new build house, he had enquired about parking on the property. He said that he was informed by the landlord that the lease granted him the right to park one car on the property. The resident said “subsequently [he] found out that this clause was never included in [his] lease” and he felt that he was “misled during the purchasing process”. The resident explained that he was having major issues with parking on the property, and wanted the landlord to enforce what he believed was promised during the buying process, i.e. one car per household.
  3. On 19 January 2021 this Service passed the resident’s complaint to the landlord and requested that it issue him a response through its complaint procedure.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 February 2021. The landlord advised that it had reviewed the email he provided in his contact from its home ownership team, dated 19 March 2019 prior to signing his lease. It explained that while the email confirmed that his lease granted him the right to park one car on the property; it also stated that the use of a space was on “a first come first serve basis and would not be demised or allocated”. The landlord further advised him that, if as part of his lease, he had an allocated parking space, this would have been included.
  5. On 13 February 2021 the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated. He said he felt that “the arrangements made before making an off-plan property purchase [were] binding and should be included in the follow-up agreements and enforced by the property seller.” He said that the landlord had made promises to him during the purchasing process to have one car per house hold, but the agreement had not been honoured, and he felt that the “purchase was misrepresented”.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 March 2021, it advised that its position remained the same. The landlord said that if the provision of a permanent parking space was a concern, it was his responsibility to raise with his solicitor, to be made clear before he signed his lease.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Housing Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “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.”
  2. The primary issue in the resident’s complaint is that he believes he was misinformed by the landlord, regarding the parking arrangements prior to signing his lease. The property sales process is a formal and legal one. There are rules and regulations about the information provided to prospective buyers, and solicitors play an important role in advising and guiding their clients in the process. Allegations of impropriety, such as the ones made by the resident, are serious matters, and ones which, ultimately, can only be resolved by the courts. The courts can cross examine and call expert witnesses, and can make legally binding judgements on the parties involved in the sale. The Ombudsman does not have the authority or remit to make such judgments. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(i), this matter is better suited for the courts, and is not one the Ombudsman will investigate.