Hackney Council (202007522)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007522

Hackney Council

10 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s completion of major works in 2014 and subsequent recharging in 2020.

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. On the 7 February 2020, the landlord acknowledged a complaint form submitted by the resident concerning major works at the Kings Crescent Estate. The resident confirmed that in 2014 they had paid charges of £9,500 towards the cost of major works however 6 years later works to install balconies had not been completed. The resident explained that on 18 July 2011, the landlord’s cabinet agreed a programme of works at the property, which included new balconies, the cost of which was to be “capped” at £10,000.
  2. The resident understood that the landlord now intended to charge for replacing the balconies at the property, which they believed they had already paid for.
  3. The landlord issued its final response on the 27 July 2020. In the landlord’s response, it explained that the section 20 notice issued on the 12 December 2012 did not refer to the provision of balconies, these were left out of the consultation. The landlord affirmed that as part of the s.20 consultation, the resident was made aware of the scope of works.
  4. The Housing Ombudsman Service was provided a copy of the resident’s Housing Ombudsman Complaint Request Form on 16 November 2020.
  5. On the 8 February 2021, the resident emailed the Service and confirmed that the issue is still unresolved. The resident stated that the Council refuses to acknowledge its failure to honour an undertaking to cap the cost of work including roofing works, cladding and balcony works at £10,000.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that…

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;’

  1. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that…

‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body

  1. The resident’s complaints turn on two points:
    1. That the landlord did not carry out the full schedule of works agreed in 2012, which had a provisional completion date some time in 2014; and
    2. That the resident should not be liable for further costs associated with replacing the balcony as this should have been carried out in the work paid for in 2014.
  2. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord about these issues on the 7 February 2020 The Service does not consider that this was a reasonable period of time in which to raise a complaint about work which was expected to be complete in 2014. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) the Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about whether balcony replacements should have been carried out in 2014.
  3. The second part of the resident’s complaint sets out that, as the landlord failed to carry out work which was agreed and paid for in 2014, they should not be expected to pay for them again in 2020. This service cannot reasonably comment on this if it cannot consider whether or not the works in 2012 were correct. The  First-tier Tribunal can consider complaints about liability to pay for major works or other service charge items. I am therefore satisfied that, in accordance with paragraph 39 (m) the Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint as it is better suited for the First-tier Tribunal.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to help them assess and clarify this issue.