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

Aster Group Limited (202230046)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230046

Aster Group Limited

19 November 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to remain in a decant property.

The background

  1. In 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about several issues[JA1] including her request to move to alternative accommodation.  The Resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint, and she brought her complaint to our Service, initially in June 2023[SJ2].  We investigated the complaint under reference 202226132. The complaint was defined as being about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
    1. Reports of damp and mould, and repairs.
    2. Decants and request to make the move permanent.
    3. Reports of damage caused to her possessions.
    4. Rent refund request.
  2. This previous complaint definition covered a wider range of complaint issues than the current complaint case. The current case is specifically about the resident’s complaint about her request to permanently remain in the property she had been decanted to, while remedial works were being carried out on her own property.
  3. The decant licence agreement for the decant property was signed on 11 January 2023[JA3][SJ4]. The resident first expressed her wish to remain in the property in February 2023. She did not want to return to her previous property. The resident moved out of the decant property, into an alternative new property on 25 March 2024.
  4. The resident raised a complaint[JA5][SJ6] on 4 July 2023 with the landlord about its response to her request to remain in the decant property, and it issued its final response on this issue on 14 July 2023.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to this Service, and we investigated it under the reference number 202226132. We issued our determination on that complaint on 4 April 2024.
  6. The resident requested a review of the Ombudsman’s determination, saying she felt the investigation had not considered all her emails and information. The review outcome was issued on 19 September 2024, upholding the findings from the original determination.

Assessment and findings[JA7]

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is 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.
  2. Paragraph[JA8] 42.L. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request to remain permanently in a decant property has already been investigated by this Service.  It is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
  3. As part of this Service’s review of investigation 202226132, we confirmed to the resident that our review had considered all the emails and information provided by the resident. Our review concluded that it had not seen any new evidence or relevant challenges to the facts that would warrant a change in the determination made, or in its orders and recommendations.
  4. The current case reference, 202230046, was opened on 1 March 2023. It includes a duplication of the relevant documents that were from the case already determined under 202226132, opened in January 2023.
  5. As outlined in the original determination report, the case had involved multiple issues over the course of several years, with multiple complaints, which at times have had overlapping elements and response timeframes. Some of the complaint issues, including the complaint about wanting to remain in the decant property, were raised later than the original complaint we had opened. We had taken the decision to incorporate this new issue into the complaint already open under 202226132.
  6. After reviewing the determination made on the case, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request to remain in the decant property has already been fully investigated and decided upon.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.L., after carefully considering all the evidence in relation to the determination made on the above case in April 2024, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her request to remain[JA9] in the decant property has already been investigated. Therefore, we have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. We have now closed our file on this complaint.

 

 

 

 

[JA1]For clarity, can you say what the complaints were

[SJ2]Jack, I’m just noting here that the original complaint was duly made on 28/6/20236 but then the LL issued another S2 response to the R including the decant issue, so it’s hard to be specific about the date she came to us, when as below, she only complained to the LL about the decant issue after the duly made date but we still included it and investigated it – hence initially in June 2023 but only complained to the LL about this issue in July 2023

[JA3]Is this date correct – it took a year between the licence agreement being signed and the R moving?

[SJ4]Yes, the S2 complaint responses on 14 July 2023 refers to  the R still being there and the LL explaining why it cannot be permanent (a legal case was pursued by R in the background over this period but this was discontinued by the solicitor … . Her argument was that the new property was not ready for her to move into until April 2024. She did not want to return to her old property so they L was trying to find suitable alternatives but she kept turning them down

[JA5]Can you include the date the resident complained

[SJ6]Its tricky as it seems she added it into other ongoing complaints but the best I can give is 4 July when the LL spoke with her and then the issue was added in to its FRL on 14/7.

[JA7]Moved this heading here in line with our style guide

[JA8]You need to have a jurisdiction heading here. Giving the before the jurisdicton decision. Look at

202338266 which gives the format

[JA9]This should start: in accordance with paragraph 42 (i) ….