Clarion Housing Association Limited (202305546)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305546

Clarion Housing Association Limited

16 September 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 repairs to the roof and gutters, pest control, and the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs for works undertaken at the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. 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, in accordance with paragraph 25 and 41(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is the owner of a property within an estate development. She has held the absolute title to the property since March 2004. The estate is managed by a member of the Scheme, which will be referred to as the “member landlord”. The member landlord has confirmed that it incorrectly understood the resident to be a leaseholder of the property at the time of her complaint.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in November 2022 about roof and gutter repairs, gutter clearing maintenance and pest control. She added that she wished to be reimbursed for private works she had carried out due to a lack of response from the member landlord and she had asked for building insurance information. She sought £3,787.96 to account for the expenses she had incurred.
  3. The member landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and stage 2 on 26 January 2023 and 25 April 2023 respectively. Within its responses, it acknowledged failures in complaint handling at both stages as well as with its undertaking of works and errors in communication. It offered a total of £1,350 compensation in view of the inconvenience and disruption to the household, accounting for vulnerabilities, its failure to follow process and lack of ownership, as well as delays in resolving the complaint at each stage.
  4. It confirmed that it had advised the resident to pursue a claim via its insurance team for her request to be reimbursed for a replacement front entrance door which she alleged had been damaged. It would not reimburse the requested amount. It explained that while compensation was warranted for the roof and gutter failings between October 2022 and January 2023, the resident had taken matters into her own hands and not provided it with sufficient opportunity to carry out repairs it was responsible for before she completed works independently.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to this Service in May 2023 as she was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. Within its evidence submissions to this Service in May 2024, the member landlord said that the property was freehold, and it was in the process of informing the resident and refunding service charges she had paid.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out who may refer a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. This includes those who have a landlord/tenant relationship with a member, including people who have a lease, tenancy, licence to occupy, service agreement or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member. Paragraph 41(a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in our opinion, were not referred to us by one of the people who can use the Scheme under paragraph 25.
  2. The Ombudsman initially understood that the resident was a leaseholder of the property when the case was referred for investigation and the case was accepted on the basis that there was a landlord/tenant relationship between the resident and the member landlord. As part of the investigation, Land Registry documents have been provided which confirm that the resident holds the absolute title for the property as a freeholder.
  3. As a freeholder of the property, there is no arrangement or contract (such as a lease or tenancy) to occupy a property owned by the member landlord. The property is owned by the resident.
  4. Paragraph 41(a) of the Scheme is a mandatory ground for accepting complaints within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In the absence of a landlord/tenant relationship, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the complaint. The complaint, as defined above, is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be investigated here.