Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202107874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107874

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

12 November 2021

Our approach

1. 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. 
2. 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

3. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour – specifically that the resident has been denied access to the property by a joint tenant.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

4. 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.
5. 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

6. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies their property under a joint assured shorthold tenancy with one other tenant.
7. The resident raised reports of antisocial behaviour from his joint tenant in May 2017.
8. The resident subsequently vacated the property in 2018 to travel abroad. On his return in September 2019, the locks had been changed and he was denied access to the property by the joint tenant. The resident described that the property had become overcrowded because the joint tenant had used the opportunity to move his family into it.
9. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 25 October 2019. The landlord explain that it had discussed with the resident his legal rights to occupy the property as a joint tenant. It had explained that both parties to the tenancy had equal rights to occupy the property and that it could not legally force the other tenant to allow the resident access. The landlord advised the resident to seek independent legal advice.
10. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 October 2020 explaining that he was still unable to enter his property as the other tenant continued to refuse him access. The resident also explained that the joint tenant had moved their partner and child into the property, therefore the property was now overcrowded.
11. The landlord provided a stage two response to the complaint on 6 November 2020. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been excluded from the property by the other joint tenant.  The landlord reiterated that it was unable to intervene and advised that the resident seeks legal advice in relation to his rights as a joint tenant.
12. The resident brought his complaint to this Service explaining he believed that the landlord had failed to act to address overcrowding in the property and the antisocial behaviour. The resident stated that he considered he had been made homeless because of the landlord’s inaction.

Reasons

13. Paragraph 39(i), (m) and (r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that 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;

(m) The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body;

(r) concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman

14. The resident’s complaint turns on whether or not the joint tenant can prevent him from accessing the property and whether the landlord can intervene on their behalf. The resident believes that the landlord should force the joint tenant to allow them access to the property.
15. The landlord’s position has been the same since this issue was first raised by the resident several years ago; that both tenants have full rights to the property under the tenancy, therefore it cannot take legal action against either tenant on behalf of the other and is not prepared to do so. It has advised the resident on several occasions to seek their own legal advice.

16. This Service cannot carry out an investigation into whether the landlord’s interpretation of the tenancy agreement is correct, nor can it order the landlord to take legal action against one or both of the joint tenants to resolve this matter. issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning the landlord’s responsibilities or enforceability of a contract where it has no legal right to provide the outcome, this is a matter for the Court.
17. The resident has also complained that the other tenant has moved members of their family into their property, therefore it is overcrowded. From the information provided to this Service, the overcrowding issue relates to the council’s assessment of the resident’s application for alternative housing – the resident arguing that their housing need is greater as their current property is no longer suitable because of the number of people living in it. The assessment of the resident’s housing need was carried out by the council in its capacity as a local authority. Complaints about the actions of a local authority are a matter for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
18. I am therefore satisfied that this is not a complaint which the Ombudsman can investigate further.
19. If the resident remains dissatisfied with this issue, they may wish to seek further advice, the following organisations may be of use.

www.citizensadvice.org.uk

https://www.lease-advice.org/advice/find-the-right-information-for-you/?step-option=61

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber

LGSCO contact