Sedgemoor District Council (202202263)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202263

Homes in Sedgemoor

09 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of refurbishment works at the resident’s property.
2. Decision to not cover the resident’s utility costs while in temporary accommodation.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The complaint concerns two properties owned by the landlord.
Property A is the resident’s primary address. The resident holds a secure tenancy for property A.
Property B is the resident’s decant property. The resident is currently living at property B under a license agreement.

Summary of events

On 4 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service to advise that he would like to make a complaint about the landlord. The resident explained that his complaint concerned:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at property A.
2. The duration of the decant, while repairs were undertaken at property A.
3. The landlord’s response to his concerns regarding water, electric and gas services at property B.
The resident stated that he had attempted to raise his concerns with the landlord, however it had not engaged.
On 19 May 2022, following contact from this Service, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns at stage one of its complaint procedure. In summary the landlord said:
1. Following a visit to property A in November 2021, it made the decision to decant the resident for his “own health and wellbeing” while it undertook “extensive works and deep cleaning”.
2. The extensive works and deep cleaning were required due to the damage that the resident had caused during the Covid-19 pandemic when visits were not being carried out and subsequent attempts for access were denied.
3. After the resident was decanted it completed a full inspection of property A and it identified that extensive works were needed to address excrement “smeared throughout [the property]”. It advised that a deep clean alone was found not to be sufficient.
4. It had delayed in completing works at property A as discussions were held to decide if it was financially viable to carry out the refurbishment or whether property A should be demolished.
5. As the refurbishment works were expected to exceed £30,000 it was required to put the works out for tender.
6. It anticipated that the resident would be able to return to property A in July 2022.
7. The refurbishment included replacement of the kitchen and bathroom, in addition to re-wiring and replacement of broken windows.
8. Due to the length of time the refurbishment works at property A were due to take, it was unable to continue to pay the resident’s utility bills while he was in the decant property, property B. It confirmed that it had agreed to cover the resident’s costs for a period of two weeks when it believed that only a deep clean of property A was required. It stated that it had previously discussed accessing support from other agencies however the resident had not engaged.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it had “acted in a fair and reasonable way”.
On 27 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would consider the complaint at stage two, following his “recent contact”. (The Ombudsman has not been provided with documentary evidence detailing the contact.)
On 28 June 2022 the landlord provided its stage two, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. The report following the inspection of property A documented extensive damage.
2. The timeline for completion of the works at property A, and the resident’s return, was protracted due to discussion concerning the way forward and the requirement to obtain three quotes for the refurbishment works. It also noted that due to Covid-19 it already had a backlog of outstanding works.
3. Its records showed that the resident had caused “extensive damage” to a “previous property” and therefore as a result of the damage to property A it had served him with a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). It explained that any further breaches of tenancy could result in the termination of the resident’s tenancy with it.
4. In line with its decant policy it was required to provide a resident with at least 14 days’ notice for a return to a property. It explained that this meant that it was not required to provide the resident with regular updates regarding the progress of the refurbishment works at property A.
5. It had agreed to cover the resident’s charges for electricity, gas and water at property B for a period of two weeks. It confirmed that this was before it had accessed property A and was fully aware of the extent of the damage.
6. Utility charges were a resident’s responsibility and it would only reimburse where it had failed in its service delivery or where a resident is likely to suffer severe hardship. It confirmed that “no further assistance [was] deemed necessary or appropriate”.
7. It was concerned regarding the “detrimental effect” on the resident and neighbours should he return to property A and repeat the behaviour.
8. It understood that the Covid-19 lockdown played a part in the resident’s behaviour and the damage he caused to property A. It confirmed that it would like to make a referral to Adult Social Services to ensure that the resident had support to sustain his tenancy.
9. It was currently in the process of obtaining quotes for the refurbishment works at property A. It confirmed that it anticipated that the works would not be completed until September 2022.
10. It acknowledged the “extended time” in dealing with refurbishments and its communication with the resident could have been better, however it explained that it only became aware of the full extent of the works required on gaining access to property A.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was unhappy with its response.
In July 2022 the resident requested that this Service consider his complaint and the landlord’s response. The resident set out that:
1. He was not responsible for the condition of property A – no further details provided.
2. The landlord’s decision to not pay utility charges while he was in property B was unfair, including as property B did not have payment meters.
3. The duration of the decant was unacceptable and it was not clear if he would be able to return to property A.
In December 2022 the resident contacted this Service to provide an update. The resident stated that as part of court proceedings to end his tenancy for property A the landlord was also seeking to recover the cost of works to refurbish the property.

Reasons

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider complaints brought before this Service. In particular, paragraph 42 sets out an exhaustive list of the type of complaints the Ombudsman will not consider.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
This means that the Ombudsman will not consider a complaint where, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the court can handle all the matters now complained of to this Service. This is because the Ombudsman ought not to make decisions which may affect the findings and orders of the court. So, where issues can be raised in legal proceedings, the court is the appropriate forum for listening to the arguments and can then reach a decision which is binding on the parties.
The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it had issued the resident with a NOSP. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the NOSP which is dated 14 June 2022.
The NOSP set out that the landlord intended to apply to the court for an order requiring the resident to give up possession of property A on the following grounds:
1. Ground 1 – “rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid or an obligation of the tenancy has been broke or not performed”.
2. Ground 2 – “the tenant or a person residing in or visiting the dwelling house has been guilty of conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing, visiting or otherwise engaging in a lawful activity in the locality…”
3. Ground 3 – “the condition of the dwelling house or of any of the common parts has deteriorated owning to acts of waste by, or the neglect of, the tenant or person residing in the dwelling house…”
The landlord said in its supporting papers to the court that it was seeking possession of the property as the resident “[had] caused a significant amount of damage to [property A] and [had] consistency allowed it to remain in a poor standard of repair by waste and neglect” which was in “breach of his tenancy conditions”.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the hearing to conclude its application for possession of property A is scheduled for 24 March 2023.
As the resident disputes that the refurbishment works were necessary as a result of his actions and he argues that the timeliness of those works is unacceptable, thus delaying his return to property A and the accumulation of utility costs at property B, it is possible for him to raise his concerns as a counter claim to the NOSP. The court may then decide whether to grant the landlord with an eviction order for property A taking into account the evidence from both parties.
Taking into consideration the resident’s and landlord’s respective positions on the matters in dispute, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that this complaint requires a decision which is legally binding on the parties. As there is currently a pending court hearing, and the Ombudsman considers that the substantive issues within this complaint can be raised as part of the legal proceedings, this complaint is therefore not one that the Ombudsman can consider and is outside of our jurisdiction in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.