Peabody Trust (202108708)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108708

Peabody Trust

22 April 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 landlord’s request to the complainant to remove the concrete he laid in the communal garden.

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 the evidence, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is first floor flat that shares a garden with the property on the ground floor.  
5. On 27 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that it had attended his property on 1st November 2019. It confirmed that the resident had laid concrete over a large part of the garden and that it was not “deemed to be adequate or professionally completed”. It said it had no record of receiving a formal written request to carry out works or an application to make improvements from the resident. As the work was carried out without its permission, and to avoid any action being taken against the resident for breach of tenancy the landlord requested that the resident restore the garden back to its original state.
6. On 16 October 2020 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about a dispute he was having with the neighbour on the ground floor of the property, about the resident having access to the communal garden.
7. In its complaint response the landlord responded to the garden access issues that the resident had raised. It also noted that the concrete was still in place despite the landlord having told the resident to remove it previously. It specified that the resident should remove the concrete within 30 days.
8. On 16 December 2020 the resident confirmed that the wanted to escalate his complaint as he said he had spoken to the landlord before he installed the concrete but that his messages had not been passed on and that he did not believe he had breached his tenancy agreement.
9. The landlord issued its stage two response which confirmed that the concrete had to be removed as it was deemed a permanent alteration to the property, and it had not given permission for it to be installed. It advised the resident how to contact this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
10. The resident contacted this Service on 21 July 2021 as he did not agree that he had acted contrary to the terms of his tenancy agreement. He said he had contacted the landlord by email and telephone before he installed the concrete.

Reasons

11. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
12. The resident was first made aware that he had to remove the concrete from the garden, in a letter from the landlord in November 2019. However, he did not raise a complaint about this request until the issue of the concrete was mentioned during a complaint about access to the communal garden, in October 2020. Given the amount of time that elapsed between the event and the complaint, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e), the Ombudsman will not consider this complaint.