Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Haringey London Borough Council (202331177)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331177

Haringey London Borough Council

18 June 2025


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 response to the resident’s request to be refunded for costs arising from not being able to use her garage.

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. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord in respect of a 1-bedroom, second floor flat. She rents a garage on a weekly basis from the landlord under a separate agreement to her lease.
  2. In September 2023, the resident complained that she had not been able to use her garage for several months. She said this was because the landlord’s contractors blocked it when completing work in the area. The resident also said an employee of the landlord agreed to refund the costs of renting the garage. But this had not happened despite her chasing it several times. The resident also asked to be reimbursed costs from repairing her car after it was broken into while she was unable to use the garage.
  3. The landlord said in its initial response that it had found no evidence that the garages had been inaccessible, so it would not be refunding her. However, the resident then sent photographs of the garages. She also sent an email from the landlord’s employee stating it had been agreed it would refund the rent she had paid from July 2022.
  4. In its stage 1 response from mid-October 2023, the landlord said it had reinvestigated the issue with its contractors. And it had found they had blocked the garages with site containers. However, it said the period was from the beginning of January 2023 until they were removed in May 2023 following a site visit. It reimbursed the rent paid for this period and awarded compensation for time and trouble at £10 per week. It advised it did not accept liability for the resident’s car being broken into and advised her it was an insurance matter.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on the same day as the initial response. She said she was unhappy the landlord had not refunded the garage rent from July 2022. She also complained it delayed in sending her a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy when she asked for it. She later added she was unhappy that she had been contacted by the contractor about reimbursing the rent. The resident asked for it to refund for the entire period, increase its compensation for the inconvenience, and compensate her for what she said was a data breach.
  6. The landlord advised in its final response from late November 2023 that it was satisfied the refund and level of compensation was reasonable. It also said that it did not consider it had breached data protection laws.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with the amount of compensation she had been awarded. She believes the landlord should refund the rent she paid for the garage from July 2022, pay more compensation, and reimburse her for costs to repair her car window.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.g. of the Scheme states that we may not investigate matters 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. The resident has a contractual agreement for the garage with the landlord that is separate from her lease agreement. Her complaint is entirely concerned with the landlord’s response to her request to be reimbursed for the rent she paid for the garage, and other costs associated, from not being able to use it. In our view, the complaint does not, therefore, relate to the occupancy of the resident’s property. As such, we have decided that we will not investigate the complaint.
  3. The resident may consider taking civil action or to make a claim under the landlord’s liability insurance to recover the rent paid for the garage and other costs. She can also complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about her concerns about how the landlord managed her data.