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

Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202012186)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012186

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

17 March 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) perpetrated by its residents.

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. After carefully considering all the evidence, it is determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 25(a) of the Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. The complainant is a homeowner, whose property is situated within the vicinity of social housing. During an incident in 2019, the complainant’s partner intervened in a situation where ASB was being perpetrated by the landlord’s tenants. Following correspondence with the landlord, the complainant made a formal complaint on 29 June 2020, regarding its handling of the situation. 
  2. In his complaint and subsequent correspondence, the complainant referred to other incidents of ASB in the area and the impact on him and the impact he envisaged on the wider community, referring to elderly neighbours who were afraid to come forward, for example. He did not feel that the landlord had taken sufficient steps to address the problems with ASB. As an outcome to his complaint, he asked that the tenants in question be rehoused and that the landlord offer an apology and compensation to him and all individuals affected by the situation.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint at stages one and two of its complaints procedure. Its final response, dated 4 August 2020, did not uphold the complaint, although correspondence continued thereafter, with the complainant expressing his ongoing dissatisfaction and seeking to clarify points the landlord had made. 
  4. The landlord advised the complainant to approach this Service, should he remain dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can consider complaints from a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. In this case, the complainant is a freeholder and owner of their own property, with no contractual relationship with the landlord. As a result, he does not have the requisite relationship with the landlord to bring his complaint within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Whilst paragraph 25(c) of the Scheme allows for an individual to make a complaint on behalf of others, where this has been authorised by those ‘others’, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case here. The complainant has referred to broader concerns about the impact of the ASB on local residents and the wider community, but the focus of the complaint was the landlord’s response to the incident involving his partner in 2019.
  3. No authorisation has been sought or provided by the other residents referenced in the complaint for the complainant to act on their behalf. Further, it appears that those ‘others’ who the complainant stated had been impacted by the ASB were also not tenants of the landlord, but homeowners themselves. As a result, they would not be in a position to bring a complaint in their own right or appoint a representative to act on their behalf in any event.
  4. Although the complainant complained to the landlord about its handling of ASB perpetrated by its tenants and it exercised its discretion to progress the complaint through its complaints procedure to exhaustion, this is not sufficient to bring the complaint with the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This Service understands that this is likely to be a disappointing outcome for the complainant, but he still has the option of obtaining legal advice as to any further steps he wishes to take.
  5. The Ombudsman would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the length of time it has taken to confirm our jurisdiction in respect of the complaint. Jurisdiction can be a complex matter and, on this occasion, it was only upon a comprehensive assessment of all the documentation that the jurisdictional issues became apparent.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 25(a) of the Scheme, the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.