Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202004505)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202004505

London & Quadrant H T

21 January 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 complains about how the landlord handled her reports of anti-social behaviour by her neighbours, in particular:
    1. the landlord’s decision in January 2019 to seek an injunction against one neighbour rather than a possession order; and
    2. how the landlord handled her reports that another neighbour had stolen letters belonging to her.

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 complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a two-bedroom flat (the property). The tenancy started on 10 March 2014.
  2. On 16 November 2018, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about how it was handling her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) relating to two separate neighbours.
  3. On 31 December 2018, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord concluded that it had met its obligations as landlord in relation to the handling of the ASB reports.
  4. On 31 December 2018, the resident set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response.
  5. On 7 January 2019, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord concluded that at that time there was insufficient evidence to seek a possession order against the first neighbour and an injunction was the best course of action, which would require the resident’s participation. The landlord also said that it would be willing to make the resident a direct offer of alternative accommodation. The landlord concluded that it had answered the issues raised in the complaint and it had not failed in its “duty of care or landlord responsibility”. The landlord advised that the complaint was closed and that she could approach the Housing Ombudsman for an independent review of the complaint.
  6. On 23 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to try and raise a new complaint with the landlord about how it handled her reports of the second neighbour stealing her post. The landlord advised the resident that she had exhausted the complaints process in January 2019 and suggested she contact this service.
  7. On 13 August 2020, the resident contacted this service about the complaint she had made to the landlord. The resident also explained that she has a mental health condition called Bipolar Affective Disorder. The resident explained that pursuing the complaints with the landlord took a lot of her time and energy particularly as the landlord did not follow its own policies and she had to seek legal advice. The resident also explained to the Ombudsman that she became stressed as a result of the landlord’s complaint response as she was not happy with its final decision. The resident explained that her mental health deteriorated and she found it too overwhelming to send this service all of the relevant evidence at an earlier date, particularly as there was a lot of information.
  8. The resident has provided a letter from her GP which confirms her medical history.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s (landlord’s) complaints procedure.
  2. The resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 7 January 2019 and she was advised by the landlord that she could contact the Ombudsman to consider her complaint further. The resident contacted this service on 13 August 2020, which was 19 months after the landlord’s final complaint response.
  3. The 12-month time frame following receipt of a final complaint response in which a resident can contact this service and set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme is a significant period in which residents can bring complaints to the Ombudsman. The time period is restricted for various reasons including that it is often difficult to carry out an effective investigation a long time after a complaint was made due to the availability of evidence. The time limit also helps to provide certainty for both parties. While the Ombudsman does have discretion to consider complaints which are brought to this service outside of the 12-month period referred to in the Scheme, this would normally require exceptional circumstances and evidence that the resident was unable to bring the complaint to this service at an earlier date.
  4. The resident has provided an explanation for the delay and it is fully acknowledged that the resident has mental health issues which have a significant impact on her life. This is not in dispute. It is also acknowledged that ill health could in some circumstances lead the Ombudsman to consider a complaint which was not brought to this service within the 12–month period provided by the Scheme.
  5. However, the time period between the final complaint response of January 2019 and the resident contacting this service was significant and seven months longer than the suggested maximum time period set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (a total of approximately 19 months).
  6. It is also noted that the resident was aware of the Ombudsman service at the time she received the final complaint response from the landlord. The landlord’s letter of January 2019 included the Ombudsman’s contact details and the resident’s correspondence indicates that she was aware of the service at this time. If the resident had contacted this service within the following 12 months, this service could have explained that we could obtain any required evidence from the landlord and could have advised her of the option of using a representative to assist with the complaint and contact us on her behalf.
  7. In conclusion, it is acknowledged that the resident suffers from ill health and it is unfortunate that the resident did not seek advice from this service at an earlier date. However, given the extensive delay and the surrounding circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it was not brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.