Arcon Housing Association Limited (202214232)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214232

Arcon Housing Association Limited

23 June 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 response to a request for an onsite evening meeting to discuss the handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.

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 an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord which is a housing a association. The property is situated within a block of 6 flats.
  2. The resident requested a meeting with the landlord at a future date at 6pm so that he and other residents could discuss ongoing issues within the block. The landlord said that it would be unable to accommodate the time, as staff were contracted to work between 9am and 5pm.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 April 2022 as he felt this was unfair and that a later time had been accommodated previously. The landlord responded and said that all in person meetings were to be held within core hours and that it could offer an on site meeting at 4pm or a virtual meeting at 6pm.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the response, stating that many residents were unable to use technology so would not be able to meet virtually, and that others worked so would not be able to meet at the earlier time.
  5. The landlord provided a stage two response on 17 May 2022 stating:
    1. It was an inclusive employer, which meant that staff could manage their personal lives and caring responsibilities round work.
    2. All customer facing work should be carried out in core hours to ensure safety of staff members.
    3. It was difficult to accommodate all residents due to different work patterns and commitments.
    4. It would be able to accommodate an on site meeting at 4pm or a virtual meeting at 6pm.
  6. The resident brought his complaint to this Service on 7 November 2022, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted it to attend the meeting at 6pm in the evening.

Reasons

  1. The resident informed this Service that his complaint is made on behalf of multiple residents and that whilst he would have been able to attend the meeting virtually, other residents would not have been able to access the technology to do so.
  2. Paragraph 48 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

‘The Ombudsman may accept one complaint from more than one complainant about the same member if the issues and facts are the same without carrying out multiple investigations’ 

 

  1. This means that the Ombudsman would have to be satisfied that the issue and any adverse affect complained about by the resident has equally affected the multiple residents referred to. This is not the case here, as the resident has explained that he would have been able to access a virtual meeting, but has concerns that other people would not have been able to: therefore the issue did not equally affect all, and so falls outside the scope of paragraph 48.
  2. Paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, do not cause significant adverse affect to the complainant”.

  1. The resident confirmed to this Service that although he worked full time and would not be able to attend the onsite meeting at 4pm, he would have been able to attend the virtual meeting at 6pm, as suggested by the landlord. The resident’s concerns are more based around the ability of other residents to attend the meeting. As such, this Service does not consider that the landlord’s refusal to attend an on site meeting at a later time, caused a significant adverse affect to the resident himself in respect of his occupation of his property.
  2. Therefore, this Service will not be investigating the complaint raised.