Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Newlon Housing Trust (202205679)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205679

Newlon Housing Trust

31 October 2022

 

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 accuracy of the landlord’s advertisement for the property that the resident bid on and subsequently moved into.

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 a tenant of the landlord of a flat. He successfully bid on this property via the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme, which was advertised on the scheme by the landlord. The resident explained that the reason for his bid was that the property was advertised as sharing a communal rooftop garden. His tenancy at the property began on 13 December 2021. On 27 February 2022, the resident advised the landlord that he could not find the communal rooftop garden and asked for clarification. It confirmed that there had been a mistake, and that the communal garden that he had access to was not a rooftop garden.
  2. As a result of the mistake, the resident told the landlord that he wished to either be rehoused in a similar property with a rooftop garden, a ground floor flat or, if this was not possible, then he wished to be placed back on the local authority’s housing register with all of his housing points restored. He was informed by the landlord that it was not possible for it to rehouse him, and that he would have to contact the local authority in relation to being put back onto the housing register and regaining his points.
  3. Following a request by the resident, the landlord contacted the local authority on his behalf, but it was subsequently advised that the lack of available and suitable properties and the length of time taken to report this meant that they could not assist. He stated that, since his tenancy at the property had started in winter 2021, he had not looked for the communal rooftop garden until February 2022. The resident then made a stage one complaint in March 2022 because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and he instead wanted to be rehoused or have his points reinstated on the housing register to enable him to bid to do so.
  4. Following this, the landlord’s stage one complaint response in April 2022 confirmed that it had investigated the possibility of rehousing the resident but, as the property was adapted to suit his needs, there were no similar properties available. It was also not its standard practice to provide residents with alternative properties in such cases. The landlord’s stage one complaint response therefore did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it believed that it had carried out its investigation fairly. It instead advised him to seek to be rehoused by considering a mutual exchange.
  5. The resident found this unacceptable and escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure in April 2022 because he believed that, if the mistake had been made by it, then it was responsible for correcting this. In its final stage complaint response in June 2022, it advised him that it had attempted to put things right by contacting the local authority on his behalf but, since it had no influence over them, this had been unsuccessful.
  6. The landlord also advised the resident that, since he had not raised the need for a rooftop garden before the start of his tenancy including when he had viewed the property, it had not had the opportunity to inform him about this correctly or set his expectations before he accepted the property. It also stated that he did have access to a communal garden overlooked by his property, just not a rooftop one. Therefore, the landlord concluded that it had made a mistake that was a failing that did not have a significant detriment or disadvantage to the resident. However, it awarded him £100 compensation in recognition of the failing, which its lettings team had taken on board to ensure that this did not happen again.
  7. The resident then complained to this Service that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to its mistake about his property having access to a rooftop garden. He wanted it to either rehouse him or put him back on the housing register and reinstate his housing points.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
  2. In this case, the resident’s complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This is because his dissatisfaction with, and request to be rehoused for, the lack of the rooftop garden advertised for the property that he successfully bid on via the local authority’s choice-based lettings scheme, concerns the operation of, and suitability of accommodation offered under, that scheme. This was dealt with both by the local authority and the housing association landlord acting on their behalf, complaints about which fall properly within the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the complaint may not be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.