Karbon Homes Limited (202002192)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202002192

Karbon Homes Limited

29 January 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

The complaint is about the way the resident’s property was advertised by the landlord.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about her level of rent and council tax.

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 complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because:
    1. the first complaint about the way the resident’s property was advertised by the landlord was not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the issue arising. As a result it is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman to consider according to paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
    2. the second complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about her level of rent and council tax. Complaints about the level of rent are outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman to consider according to paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 17 July 2017. The resident has stated that she signed the tenancy based on information presented in the landlord’s advertisement of the property which she considered to indicate it was suitable for disabled living. Upon moving into the property she found it had not been adapted to particular disability specifications. In the aftermath of moving into the property the resident discussed with the landlord concerns that the property was not adapted for disabled occupancy/living in the way she had been led to believe. The landlord has provided a copy of the original advertisement of the property and the resident has made comments on this to the Ombudsman.
  2. On 19 January 2020 the resident made a social media post regarding the condition of the property, the estate and the amount of rent she was paying which the landlord was made aware of. It contacted the resident on the same day noting it had become aware of the issues raised and offered to undertake a meeting to discuss these. The meeting was confirmed for 12 February 2020.
  3. The evidence indicates that an official complaint was raised in January 2020 about the way the property was advertised by the landlord amongst other issues, following the landlord’s communication with the resident.
  4. On 12 February 2020, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve the situation.
  1. On 17 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response setting out its position on the resident’s complaint about the information advertised about the property prior to her moving in and the level of rent. On 21 March 2020 the resident requested that the complaint be escalated, with the landlord providing its final complaint response on 14 April 2020. In this it set out its position that:
    1. Having reviewed the brochure and original advertisement from 2017 regarding the bungalow, it accepted that the interpretation of the words “suited to the needs of an ageing population and those with mobility problems” could be quite subjective. It stated that there was no deliberate attempt to mislead the resident, and the opportunity was given to the resident to view the bungalow before accepting the tenancy.
    2. The rent was set on the bungalow at the time of first letting by reference to the market rent at the time of a similar property in a similar location. The ‘affordable rent’ arrangement was charged at 80% of the market rent and there was no review mechanism during the existence of the tenancy. The rent to be charged was included in the material provided to the resident prior to the letting of the property.
  1. On 12 June 2020 the resident wrote to her local MP asking that the following elements of her complaint be forwarded on to the Ombudsman;
    1. Why the property was not adapted to any particular disability needs when it was constructed.
    2. The fact that the resident was paying a higher than normal rent.
  2. The resident has subsequently written to the Housing Ombudsman on 28 June 2020 setting out points she wished to have considered regarding her complaint:
    1. At no time after her acceptance did the landlord write and inform her that the units were not adapted for disability living.
    2. She questioned why these bungalows were not adapted for disabled living when bungalows for disabled persons were currently at a premium.
    3. The rent and council tax were exceedingly high.

Reasons

  1. The resident became aware of the issues that formed the substance of the first complaint in July 2017 when she commenced her tenancy at the property, being the specifications of the property when it was built. There is no evidence to indicate that the issue was raised with the landlord as a formal complaint prior to the beginning of 2020, with correspondence setting out that the complaint was raised “a few weeks” prior to the landlord’s visit to the property on 12 February 2020 and after a social media post made on 19 January 2020.
  2. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman 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. This complaint is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider as the resident did not make a formal complaint within six months of the matter arising.
  1. The resident has also raised a complaint about the landlord’s response to her enquiries about her level of rent and council tax. She has expressed in her complaint with the landlord and correspondence with the Ombudsman that she is unhappy with the amount of rent and council tax she is paying, considering them to be higher than normal/”exceedingly high”.
  2. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The Ombudsman is also unable to consider the level of council tax payable by the resident. This complaint is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to consider. The resident may wish to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber (Residential Property) if she wishes to have the level of rent payable on the property assessed.