Southwark Council — case 202111092

REPORT COMPLAINT 202111092 Southwark Council 29 March 2022 Our approach The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings. The complaint This complaint is about the level of redress the landlord awarded in respect of multiple delays and failures while handling plumbing repairs at the property, and the resident’s subsequent complaint.

Jurisdiction 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Paragraph 25 confirms who is eligible to bring a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Paragraph 25(a) says, “a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord” can bring a complaint to the Service. “This includes people who have a lease, tenancy, licence to occupy, service agreement or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by a member”. Reasons The Ombudsman has seen “conditions of sale” documentation relating to the property, along with information from the Land Registry. The information shows the resident was a freeholder and he owned the property outright.

There was no information to show a landlord/tenant relationship existed from the outset of the complaint. The criteria around the premises being owned or managed by a member landlord likewise did not apply. Given the above, the evidence shows the resident was not an eligible complainant.