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

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202101822)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101822

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

9 July 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. The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the resident’s garage.

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

Summary of events

  1. On 15 May 2018 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord and explained that the garage required repairs as there was a leak in the roof. The resident detailed that he had contacted the landlord to report the leak on 29 September 2017. The resident stated that although various contractors had attended to assess the repairs required, the issue remained unresolved. The resident stated that the leak had caused damaged to his vintage car. The resident explained that he was seeking for the payment of rent to be stopped until the repairs were completed.
  2. The council provided a final response to the complaint on 20 April 2021. It acknowledged the delay in providing its response and explained that the garage was beyond economical repair. The landlord offered an alternative garage and provided the contact details to arrange a viewing of the garage. In recognition of the experience in pursuing the complaint, the landlord offered the resident £75 to acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble, and a further £75 to acknowledge the delays during the complaints process. The landlord explained that it would be ending the tenancy for the garage within a seven day period.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 36 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

The person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.

  1. In this case the resident’s complaint relates to how their landlord handled repair reports concerning their garage.
  2. From information provided by the landlord, this Service understands that the resident has use of their garage through a separate rental agreement to their home. The garage is also located in a separate location to their property.  As such, the complaint does not relate to an issue which has adversely affected the resident’s occupation or use of their home.  I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the Scheme, this is not a complaint which the Ombudsman can investigate further.
  3. As the garage is subject to a separate contract, if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has handled this issue and, if they attribute damage to their possessions to its handling of repairs to the garage, they may wish to seek their own legal advice.