Croydon Council (202001124)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001124

Croydon Council

6 April 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 condition of the property when the resident moved in and the landlord’s subsequent failure to carry out required repairs.

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 to consider, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. In 2017 the resident was placed in private accommodation by the landlord, who is a local authority. She was housed in accordance with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, with the landlord’s offer letter of accommodation, stating that its offer was a “Discharge of duty under the Housing Act 1996, Part VII as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Localism Act 2011”.
  2. The resident was dissatisfied with the condition of the property, stating that it was “uninhabitable”, and that there were issues with the heating, damp, mould and rats amongst others. She said that, since moving to the property, she had been unsuccessfully trying to pursue resolution of these problems through the landlord itself as well as with the Environmental Health Team.
  3. The resident pursued a formal complaint with the landlord, which it did not uphold, issuing its stage two response on 17 July 2020. It set out a timeline of events and found that all required repairs were carried out within a reasonable timeframe.

 

 

Reasons

  1. Local Housing Authorities have responsibility for assessing applications for housing from homeless applicants under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. In some cases, this will include an obligation to provide temporary accommodation until an allocation under part 6 can be made.
  2. Although the resident is an assured tenant, her being housed in accordance with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, means that the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. Complaints concerning applications for assistance under the homelessness legislation (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association) fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Similarly, if a complaint concerns actions or omissions that occurred before a tenancy offered under Part 6 is signed, this complaint falls within LGSCO. The resident is complaining that the property was not in a suitable condition, prior to any signing of the tenancy or change of tenancy status.
  3. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.  Consequently, the complaint raised, is not one which this Service can consider. This is because the matter complained of is one for the LGSCO.  In its response to the complaint, the landlord referred the resident to the LGSCO, which was the correct route to progress matters.
  4. The Ombudsman would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the length of time that it has taken to confirm our jurisdiction in respect of the complaint. Jurisdiction is a complex matter and to come to a conclusion on the complaint a thorough assessment of the facts had to be completed first.