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

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202005054)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005054

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

22 February 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 resident complained about the landlord’s:
  1. handling of a staircasing transaction in 2012.
  2. response to their request for the registration certificate for the solar panels at the property.

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 complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was a shared owner of the property. In 2012, they made an application to purchase the remaining 25% share of the property from the landlord.
  2. The staircasing transaction was completed sometime between December 2012 and January 2013, at which point, the resident became the freeholder of the property.
  3. The resident reported that in 2013 and 2017, their solicitor wrote to the landlord about its handling of the staircasing transaction however, no response was received from the landlord. We have not been provided a copy of this correspondence and it is not clear whether the landlord has a record of this contact.

 

  1. It is agreed by the parties that in 2016, the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, in relation to the way the staircasing transaction was dealt with. The resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that they were not satisfied with the offer. From the information we have been provided, it is not clear whether there was further correspondence between the parties about this.
  2. The resident said that they contacted the landlord again in 2018, to follow up on the issue they previously raised about the staircasing transaction. In addition to this, they also raised their request for the registration certificate for the solar panels, so that they could apply for the Feed in Tariff (FIT) government scheme.  They said that the landlord agreed to make enquires with the relevant departments but did not get back in touch about the matter.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord, on 15 September 2019, about its handling of their staircasing transaction in 2012 and, its response to their request for the solar panel registration certificate.
  4. The landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 26 June 2020. It concluded that it did not accept liability for the financial losses the resident claimed they had incurred during the staircasing transaction in 2012. Regarding the request for the certificate, it advised the resident to contact their energy provider directly, to provide details about the solar panels, so that they could apply for the FIT scheme.
  5. The resident contacted this Service with their complaint in August 2020 and on, 8 September 2020, they provided a copy of the final response they received from the landlord.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”

  1. The staircasing transaction took place in 2012 however, the resident did not submit their complaint until 2019, seven years later. The parties have confirmed that there was communication about the matter prior to the submission of the complaint. However, there is no evidence that the matter was handled through the landlord’s formal complaint procedure prior to September 2019.
  2. A significant period of time lapsed from when the staircasing transaction took place before the formal complaint was raised to the landlord. We will not therefore, investigate the complaint about the way the landlord handled the staircasing transaction, as it was not raised to the landlord as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period.
  3. Paragraph 25 (a) of the Scheme states that:

“The following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members: a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. This includes people who have a lease, tenancy, licence to occupy, service agreement or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member; if the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose”

  1. The staircasing transaction took place in 2012.The information provided indicates that the resident raised the query about the certificate in 2018, six years after they became the freeholder of the property. It follows that at the time that the matter complained of arose, they did not have a landlord-tenant relationship with the landlord.
  2. Given the relevant provision of the Scheme, we will not be investigating the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the solar panel registration certificate.