Octavia Housing (202128280)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128280

Octavia Housing

21 December 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.
    2. The landlord’s communication with the resident.

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 to investigate.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bedroom flat on the ground floor of a block. Her tenancy began in 2018. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. There had been disputes between the resident and her neighbours over a number of years. The landlord applied to court for an injunction order in 2019 in relation to the resident breaching some terms of her tenancy and her frequent communication with the landlord. This was resolved by way of an undertaking the resident gave to the court in November 2019. One of the terms of the undertaking placed restrictions on the resident’s contact with the landlord.
  3. The resident asked to move to alternative housing. She was informed that she would not be eligible to join the landlord’s transfer list because of previous tenancy breaches. It agreed instead that she would be offered an ‘out of policy’ management move to another property.
  4. Between 2020 and 2022, a number of potential properties were identified for the resident but either the resident declined them, or the landlord determined that the property was not suitable for the resident.
  5. On 18 January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that a 3 bedroom house had been identified for her. The existing occupier needed to downsize, and it hoped that the property would be available within the next 3-6 months. Over the next few weeks, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and email on several occasions to enquire about the 3 bedroom property.
  6. On 4 February 2022, the landlord had a discussion with the resident during which the landlord informed her that the 3 bedroom property was not available and that she was only eligible for a 2 bedroom property.
  7. The resident complained to the landlord about the 3 bedroom property not being offered to her and about the landlord’s communication with her. The landlord’s complaint response stated that the resident was not eligible for a 3 bedroom property and that this had been discussed with her in error. At the landlord’s complaint panel review, the landlord’s decision was upheld.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 41c of the Scheme states that:

The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

c. Concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the

    subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.

  1. In November 2022, the landlord issued a claim for possession of the resident’s property in the county court relying on grounds under nuisance and breach of tenancy. The resident filed a defence and counterclaim to the proceedings. At the time of writing this report, the proceedings had not yet concluded.
  2. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings. This is also the case where a resident could have, or has, sought to counterclaim in court in relation to the matter they are complaining about. This is because the resident had the opportunity to raise the subject of the complaint as part of the proceedings.
  3. From the information provided to this Service, the issues raised by the resident in her complaint have been considered by the court as part of the landlord’s possession claim or have, or could have, been raised as part of the resident’s defence and counterclaim. The resident has had legal representation throughout the course of the proceedings. It would therefore not be fair for the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint given the ongoing court proceedings.
  4. For this reason, this complaint is not one that the Ombudsman can consider and is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate in line with paragraph 41c of the Scheme.