We are aware of a third-party IT security incident that has impacted our case management system.

While we investigate this and get our systems back online, you will be unable to submit a new complaint, view an existing complaint, or use our web chat, webform, Learning Hub, or landlord portal.

If you need to raise a new complaint, please email info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk or call us on 0300 111 3000. We’re working to handle enquiries and cases where this is possible, notifying any customers and landlords where this is not possible

We’re working to restore our services as quickly as possible and will share updates when we can.

Thank you for your patience. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Cannock Chase District Council (202226366)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202226366

 

Cannock Chase District Council

 

5 April 2024

 

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 intimidation by its rent collection officer.

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 was previously a tenant of the landlord. On 4 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it intended to seek possession of the property as the resident accumulated rent arrears.
  2. The landlord subsequently applied to the courts and received an order for possession on 15 February 2023. The landlord was also awarded court costs and a money judgment for the arrears.
  3. The court would have had to review the reasonableness of the decision to give possession of the property to the landlord, and it follows that the court would have reviewed the landlord’s attempts to ask the resident to pay rent arrears.
  4. The resident set out his defence against the possession order in front of the judge. It is reasonable to conclude that the conduct of the landlord’s rent collection officers would have been integral to the resident’s defence. It follows, that the resident had the opportunity to raise and discuss the matters of the complaint as part of the legal proceedings.
  5. Furthermore, the resident sought for this service to investigate a complaint about the condition of his neighbour’s garden. This, however, did not form a part of the resident’s stage 1 complaint as put to the landlord on 15 November 2022. The landlord explained in its final response letter that this matter was not accepted as part of this complaint. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. As the complaint about the neighbour’s garden did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaint process, it did not form a part of this investigation. This was also in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.