Peabody Trust (202002510)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002510

Peabody Trust

8 March 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 is about the terms of a new tenancy agreement offered by the landlord.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. 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

4. In 2016, the resident was granted an Assured Shorthold tenancy (AST) under the Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI). The resident’s AST was subsequently renewed in 2018. 
5. In 2018, the landlord merged with another housing provider.
6. The landlord offered the resident a new tenancy in 2020. However, while this is an Assured Shorthold tenancy (AST), the resident believes that the terms are different to the previous AST’s granted in 2016 and 2018.
7. On 15 June 2020, the resident submitted a complaint asking the landlord to redraft the new tenancy agreement so that it contained the same terms as the tenancy agreements provided in 2016 and 2018.
8. The landlord provided its final response on 11 December 2020. It explained that its merger in 2018 resulted in the introduction of a new group tenancy policy and agreement. And that the tenancy agreement offered to the resident in 2016 and 2018 was no longer available. It also explained that the new tenancy was its standard AST and it was not prepared to redraft this. The landlord explained that the resident could either sign the new tenancy or continue with their existing tenancy on a periodic basis.
9. The resident referred their complaint to this Service and explained that the outcome they were seeking is for the landlord to amend its tenancy agreement to match the tenancy agreements previously issued in 2016 and 2018.

Reasons

10. Paragraph 39 (r) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which:

Concerns matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.

11. The resident’s original tenancy had a fixed term which has now expired, as such, the resident’s occupancy of their property is secured under a statutory periodic tenancy. Therefore, the resident currently has a valid occupancy agreement.
12. The resident’s complaint turns on their belief that the new tenancy offered in 2020, consequent to the landlord’s merger, has different terms and offers different levels of security to the tenancies they received in 2016 and 2018.
13. When referring their complaint via a designated person, the resident explained that the outcome they are seeking from an investigation by the Ombudsman, is for the landlord to offer a new tenancy which is identical to those offered in 2016 and 2018.
14. This Service does not have the power to issue a binding decision which would require one party to change or accept the terms of an agreement. It is for the resident to seek appropriate advice to determine whether or not the new tenancy on offer is suitable.
15. Furthermore, assessing whether the new tenancy is in breach of the resident’s statutory rights or the existing rights afforded by the previous tenancies in 2016 and 2018, would require determination by the Courts who could issue a binding decision on this matter.