Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202115743)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115743

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

7 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 concerns the resident’s belief that their former property was unsafe.

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’s complaint concerns their former property, which they vacated in May 2021.
5. The resident’s complaint concerns work carried out to the property before their tenancy started. They explain that they understood that, prior to their tenancy, the landlord carried out repairs to undo changes made by the previous resident. The resident was unhappy to learn that a water tank in the loft had been placed on boarding and understood it should have been mounted to joists.
6. In their complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that they only became aware of this information after their tenancy had ended. Their complaint concerned the risk they believed this had posed to their family during their tenancy.
7. The landlord provided a final response to the complaint on 22 November 2021. It denied that the property was unsafe.
8. The resident referred their complaint to this Service, they disagreed that the landlord had understood the risk posed to their family and believed they were entitled to compensation for this.

Reasons

9. Paragraph 36 of the Scheme sets out that “The person complaining, or on whose behalf a complaint is made must have been, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, adversely affected by those actions or omissions in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property.”
10. The resident’s complaint is about the installation of the water tank at their former property. The complained that this installation placed their family at risk. They were not aware of this issue until they vacated the property.
11. The Ombudsman can only investigate complaints which affect a resident’s occupation of their property. The issue complained about must have occurred while the resident occupied the property, as must any effect upon the resident.
12. If the resident had been aware of an issue concerning the water tank, and reported this during their tenancy, we would accept that this had an affect upon them during the time they lived in the property. However, this is not the case with this complaint. By the time the resident became aware of this issue, they no longer lived in the property, therefore this is a complaint about what may have happened, not something that occurred, or was identified during their tenancy. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint.
13. It may also be helpful to consider the outcome that the resident is seeking as resolution to their complaint. In their complaint, the resident explains that they now believe that their family was placed in a position of risk for the duration of the tenancy, and that this has caused distress which the landlord must compensate them for. The landlord disputes any liability for this. Such a complaint may fall within the jurisdiction of the Court and may be better suited for consideration as a claim for damages.