Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202111696)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111696

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

29 April 2022


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:
  1. complaints about the resident’s wife’s former property.
  2. the charges for the resident’s garage.
  3. the resident’s Subject Access Request.

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 to investigate.

Summary of events

  1. The resident’s wife was the leaseholder of a property, of which the landlord was the freeholder. The property in question was sold in March 2019. The resident brought this complaint on behalf of their wife to the Ombudsman.
  2. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord in 2016 about a dispute relating to service charges. The landlord reports that the complaint was responded to and closed in January 2016.
  3. A further complaint about their wife’s previous property was raised with the landlord in 2017 about:
  1. Its response to the resident’s request for entry fobs to the front entry door, car park and the bin gate.
  2. Rubble in the stack pipe and service duct, a blockage to the stack pipe and an associated claim for damages.
  1. The landlord provided its response to this complaint in August 2017.
  2. The resident has a rental agreement with the landlord for a garage, which commenced in 1995.
  3. In January 2021, the resident submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to the landlord. It responded with the information on 22 February 2021.
  4. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord around 27 February 2021 about:
  1. Its response to the SAR.
  2. The claim for damages made in 2017, relating to the blocked stack pipe of their wife’s former leasehold property.
  3. The rent charges for the garage, which they disputed. And the communication the landlord had sent in relation to arrears on the rent account for the garage.
  4. The dispute about the charges for the investment works the landlord had completed at the resident’s wife’s former leasehold property, in 2016.
  5. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.
  1. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 11 May 2021. It explained that:
  1. It had provided information about why some of the information requested as part of the SAR, was not originally sent and why it had to redact some information.
  2. In respect of the damages claim, it said that it reviewed a complaint in 2017 and offered £100 which was refused. It said that no further contact was received in relation to the complaint therefore, it was closed.
  3. There was an increase in the rent for the garage and correspondence had been sent to the resident about this. As a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to clear arrears on the garage rent account and confirmed the rent amount expected going forward.
  4. In regard to the communication it sent about the arrears, it said that this was not intended to cause harassment as the resident had indicated they felt.
  5. Regarding the dispute from 2016 about the charges for the investment work, it said that due to the time that had passed since then, it was not possible to take any further action in relation to this matter as the information required was not available.
  6. In respect of the complaint handling, it acknowledged that it took longer than expected for it to respond to the complaint and that an update should have been provided at the time about the delay.

 

Reasons

Complaints about the resident’s wife’s former property.

  1. Paragraph 39d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
  2. Regarding the complaints concerning the resident’s wife’s former leasehold property, the resident raised formal complaints to the landlord in 2016 and 2017. These complaints were in turn, responded to by the landlord under its formal complaints procedure, in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
  3. These complaints, however, were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention until, August 2021, more than 4 years later.
  4. The Ombudsman expects residents to bring complaints to this service within a reasonable period of the matters occurring so that an effective resolution can be reached. Given that the complaints relating to the resident’s wife’s property were not brought to the Ombudsman attention for formal consideration until 4 years after the landlord’s formal complaint responses, then in line with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme these complaints will not be considered further.

Handling of the garage account.

  1. Paragraph 39j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships not connected with the complainant’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes.
  2. In this complaint, the rental of the garage is under a separate contractual agreement which is not linked to the agreement for the occupation of their home. Therefore, the Ombudsman is not able to consider any complaint about the garage.

Complaint in relation to the SAR

  1. Complaints about issues relating to access to data, requested as part of a SAR, are considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). a
  2. Paragraph 39m states that the Ombudsman will not review complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or complaint handling body.
  3. The resident has confirmed that they have raised a complaint with the ICO, they have noted that the ICO cannot award compensation for any distress or loss suffered and, said that they have been advised to pursue such a claim through the courts or with an ombudsman.
  4. The Ombudsman considers remedies, such as compensation once we have investigated a complaint. As the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to investigate the substantial issue of the complaint, that is, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s data, we cannot assess compensation for this.