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

Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202005644)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005644

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

28 May 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

  1. The complaint concerns the information about the property provided by the landlord, prior to the residents starting their shared ownership lease.

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, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The residents have a shared-ownership lease with the landlord which began on 19 December 2019.
  2. The landlord’s records show that the residents first reported a major flood in their back garden on 20 December 2019. They then made similar reports throughout the following seven months, and advised that there was no drainage. The records also show that the landlord arranged for the property developers to carry out repair work to the garden on 17 June 2020 to resolve the drainage issue. The landlord offered the residents £500 compensation on 14 August 2020 in light of the garden issues, and then raised the offer to £600 on 3 September. The residents declined this offer on 10 September. They said that the landlord had not understood how having no use of their garden for seven/eight months had impacted them. They said that it was aware of the issue in October 2019 and should have informed them accordingly.
  3. The residents emailed the landlord on 20 September 2020 after it had asked them to clarify why they were dissatisfied with its stage one complaint response (it is unclear when it issued its stage one complaint response). They said that the landlord should have disclosed this major problem with the garden with them before they signed their lease agreement. They said that they would never have purchased the property if they had known of this issue. They explained that the £600 offered was not proportionate to what they had spent on shoes, rugs, curtains, and cleaning materials. They said that the sale of the property should have been questioned, as it was not fit to be sold.
  4. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 22 September 2020. It acknowledged that, from looking back at its records, it could see that its internal communication had been poor. It said that its development team were liaising with its property developers “with regards to slowing the rainwater run-off from the communal area to the back of your property”, but that it had not communicated this well enough with its sales team. It offered the resident £600 and explained that this was composed of £21 per week for 28 weeks for the loss of their garden.
  5. The residents have told this Service that the flooding issue appears to have eventually been resolved. However, they explained that they believe the landlord should have disclosed the garden problems at the time of the sale, and that they may not have completed the purchase if they had known.

Reasons

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
  2. The residents explained to the landlord (and this Service) that they would not have purchased the property if they had known that there was a fault with the garden drainage. They said it should have disclosed this information to them before they signed their lease as it was aware of the issue in October 2019. They sought compensation from the landlord on that basis, as well as for the damage the flooding had caused. The landlord acknowledged poor communication on its part, which may have affected the information given to the residents at the time of the sale.
  3. Disputes regarding the sale of a property, and concerns over what information was or was not disclosed, are issues more suitably dealt with by the courts. These are legal matters, and appropriate for the courts, who can call on expert witnesses, make legally binding judgements, and potentially order compensation much higher than is usually considered by the Ombudsman.
  4. In this particular case, the residents’ lease agreement sets out that the residents are responsible for the repair and maintenance of their garden. Damage caused by flooding would usually be compensated through home contents insurance. Because of that, compensation above any the landlord used its discretion to offer would more appropriately be resolved by the courts.