Southwark Council (202014501)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014501

Southwark Council

24 July 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy pipework.

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. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a residential block owned by the local authority landlord. The building is managed by a tenant management organisation (TMO).
5. The resident complained to the TMO in July 2019 about noisy pipework from the dry riser outside his property that caused a nuisance and disrupted his sleep. The resident was dissatisfied with the TMO’s approach and escalated his complaint to the landlord on 7 January 2020.
6. On 14 February 2020, the landlord sent its final response letter. It upheld the complaint and detailed the measures it had taken and had planned to take to investigate the matter for the resident. The landlord also provided the resident with referral rights to this Service.
7. The resident approached this Service for advice over a year later, on 19 February 2021. He said that he had planned to meet the newly appointed manager of the TMO and felt optimistic about the prospect of resolving the complaint. This Service advised the resident that it would take no further action in light of this.  
8. The resident contacted this Service again on 11 November 2022 and said there was a lack of accountability at the TMO due to the high turnover of staff. He asked to progress his complaint. The resident said he understood 12 months had passed since the initial correspondence with this Service, but he hoped this Service accepted the complaint due to the ‘exceptional circumstances’.
9. This Service responded on 18 November 2022 and advised the resident that the complaint may fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction due to the time that had passed since the landlord responded to his complaint. This Service contacted the landlord to gather evidence. No evidence could be found relating to noise after 2020.

Reasons

10. Paragraph 42 (b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
11. The landlord’s final response letter was in February 2020; the resident asked this Service on 11 November 2022 to investigate events which occurred in 2019. As issues become historic, it becomes increasingly difficult to unpick the events that took place and how matters were handled. Evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate, and accounts become less reliable.
12. In light of the above, this complaint falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.