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

Newlon Housing Trust (202119350)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119350

Newlon Housing Trust

11 October 2023


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 is about the resident’s report that the landlord failed to comply with the court injunction issued in May 2022. 

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. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. A court injunction was issued on 17 May 2022 to allow the landlord access to the property to complete a gas safety check, electrical inspection, and gas pipe inspection and repairs. The injunction stated the landlord had to provide the resident with 72 hours’ notice of the appointment, and it specified the contractor the landlord should use.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 29 June 2022 as she said a contractor had attended on 25 June 2022 without providing notice of the appointment. She said the landlord should have been made aware that the injunction stipulated the landlord must provide 72 hours’ notice.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it had not been sent the sealed injunction order due to a backlog with the courts, so it had not been able to arrange the necessary appointments. It said the contractor “may have unexpectedly visited your property without prior notice” and it apologised for the error and the distress caused.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint as she was dissatisfied the landlord had not received the court order, resulting in the wrong contractor attending the property. She also said she found a sticker left by the contractor on 13 August 2022. She asked the landlord to accept the judge’s decision regarding the requirements for the appointments.
  6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated the delay in receiving the injunction order was outside of its control. It said it had discussed with its contractor the resident’s report that they had attended again and confirmed there had been no further appointment attempts. There were clear notes on its system not to attend her property.
  7. In the resident’s complaint to this service, she said she remained dissatisfied that the contractor had not adhered to the court order as it attended without providing sufficient notice. She also raised additional concerns regarding the contractor’s behaviour.

Reasons

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The resident’s complaint relates to whether the landlord correctly adhered to the injunction order. The Ombudsman cannot issue a binding decision about a dispute concerning the landlord’s compliance with an injunction, as this is an issue for the court due to being a legal matter. If the resident remains dissatisfied, it is recommended that she refers the issue to the court, as it falls properly within their remit. As a result, this is not a complaint the Ombudsman can investigate.
  3. The resident stated that as an outcome of the complaint she wanted the contractors to be prohibited access, as stated by the judge. For the reasons set out above, this is not an outcome the Ombudsman has the authority to provide.
  4. In her complaint to this service, the resident also raised that she was dissatisfied with the contractor’s conduct. However, there is no evidence that this was raised to the landlord within the formal complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this service. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the contractor’s conduct, it is recommended that she raises a new complaint with the landlord, which may then be considered by this service if required.