Abri Group Limited (202203225)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203225

Abri Group Limited

27 October 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 actions following the death of the resident’s neighbour.

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

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a sheltered housing provider. The scheme offers welfare calls and texts, which residents have to pay for. All residents have the option to opt in or out of this service, as the landlord’s model of support is based around independent living, rather than supported living.
  2. The resident reported that she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions regarding the discovery of another resident who had passed away inside their own flat, within the complex. She believed that although the welfare checks were optional, the landlord still had a responsibility to provide a duty of care and check on the wellbeing of all residents. The resident explained that, as this was not done with the neighbour, it showed a “dereliction of duty” by the landlord as she was found several weeks after she had died (the exact timeframe is unclear).
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about the services, or lack of, which it had provided to the neighbour. The landlord responded by explaining the circumstances which lead to the delayed discovery (as much as it said it could without divulging personal information).
  4. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, reiterating her concerns about the landlord’s actions in relation to her neighbour, and its handling of them.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme states that a complaint relates “to the actions or omissions of a landlord which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their… occupation of, property”. Paragraph 42(o) further explains that the adverse effect must have been “significant”.
  2. There is no disputing how understandably upsetting and distressing the death of her neighbour, and circumstances of her discovery, will have been for the resident, and other residents. Nonetheless, for the Ombudsman to consider a complaint there needs to have been a clear effect on the complainant’s own home, or their occupation of it. In this case there is no clear connection, at least to the extent which would arguably bring the complaint into the Ombudsman’s remit. We should also explain that an affect needs to have occurred. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate cases where there is an alleged potential future, or hypothetical impact, such as the concerns which the resident also raised with the landlord about the implications for her own future care and wellbeing.
  3. For those reasons the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any other organisation to which such a complaint could be directed, in these circumstances.