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

Hackney Council (202003776)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003776

Hackney Council

31 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 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to:
    1. keep a pet at the property in 2016, and
    2. to rent a garage in 2018.

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, the complaint regarding keeping a pet at the property in 2016, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraphs 39(a) and 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’):
    1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure…”
    2. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
  3. With regards to the complaint about renting a garage in 2018, this is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(j) of the Scheme:
    1. Paragraph 39(j) of the Scheme states that, “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion (…) concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes…”

Summary of events

  1. The landlord accepts that sometime in 2016 (neither the landlord’s nor the resident’s records are specific about the date) the resident was verbally told by the Housing Officer at the time that he could keep a pet dog at the property. Based on this assurance, he got a pet dog. However, in 2017 (again, the records are not clear) the resident was visited by a different Housing Officer who, in the resident’s opinion, accused him of not obtaining the correct written permission required for keeping pets in the property. The resident said that the threat of sanctions against him caused him anxiety and worry and affected his mental health. The resident obtained the written permission, but he feels that the stress he was put through could have been avoided had the first officer given him the correct advice about needing written permission.
  2. With regards to the garage issue, the resident has said that sometime in May 2018 he enquired with the Housing Officer at the time about renting a garage for his bike and/or for use as a possible workshop and for storage of his tools. He says the officer told him that she had put him on a waiting list for a garage. However, upon querying this with the landlord a few months later, it transpired that the resident was not in fact on any waiting list. The officer then completed an application for a garage on behalf of the resident in August 2018. The Ombudsman understands that this request was declined by the landlord at the time as the resident did not have a motor vehicle.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the issues being complained about have previously been dealt with by the landlord several times over the last few years. The previous Stage 1 complaint responses were issued on 29 August 2017, 19 October 2018, and 4 September 2019. The Ombudsman understands that none of these previous complaints had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. This present complaint was formally logged on 30 March 2020.

Reasons

  1. With regards to the complaint about the advice given in 2016 about keeping a pet, there is no evidence to confirm exactly when this incident took place. But both the landlord and the resident accept it was shortly after the resident moved into the property in 2016. There is no evidence to confirm when the resident first complained about this incident. However, the landlord’s records show that it issued a Stage 1 complaint response for this issue on 29 August 2017. Given that the incident is said to have occurred sometime in 2016, the complaint was not brought to the attention of the landlord within six months. As such, this complaint would fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(e) above.
  2. Furthermore, it can be seen from the landlord’s records that the Stage 1 complaint response was issued on 29 August 2017, and the resident did not pursue this complaint further at that time. There is no evidence to show that the complaint was escalated or that it had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, this complaint would fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(a) above.
  3. The resident did log the same complaint again in October 2018, and September 2019 as evidenced by the Stage 1 complaint responses that were issued at the time. But these complaints were raised with the landlord significantly outside the six-month timeframe. Similarly, neither of these subsequent complaints had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. 
  4. With regards to the complaint about the request to rent a garage, the Ombudsman understands that the garages the resident requested to rent are separate standalone garages which are not linked to a property. The landlord’s website confirms that anyone can apply to the council to rent one of these garages. These garages are let on a separate agreement and there is nothing within the garage letting agreement which stipulates that it is in any way connected to a tenant’s property or their main tenancy agreement. 
  5. As such, as the garages are let on separate agreements, this complaint would fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it does not relate to the landlord’s housing activities. The garages are subject to separate commercial and contractual agreements that are not directly linked to the resident’s occupation of his property. This complaint would therefore fall outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(j) above.