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

London Borough of Enfield (202338241)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338241

London Borough of Enfield

8 April 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 concerns about:
    1. The safety of the building.
    2. Its offer to buy back the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman 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, in accordance with paragraphs 42(f) and (o) of the Scheme, the complaints about building safety and the landlord’s offer to buy back the property are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident has lived in the 3-bedroomed flat of a multi-storey block owned by the landlord since 2006. She became the leaseholder in April 2022.
  2. The resident’s representative brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on the resident’s behalf. For ease of reference, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the report.
  3. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the safety of the building on or around 29 November 2022. The landlord had written to all residents to advise recent surveys had identified the need for refurbishment. This included structural work and the removal of the gas supply which it said had come to the end of its useful working life.
  4. On 5 December 2022 the landlord replied to the resident repeating the content of its letter sent to all residents in the building. It advised:
    1. It was working on a plan with the gas contractor to replace the gas supply and it had until January 2024 to install a new heating system when the gas supply would be disconnected.
    2. The gas contractor had recommended increased gas safety checks until the disconnection date, and during one of those checks, a gas leak was found which led to the disconnection of the gas to ensure the building was safe.
    3. It had written to residents to confirm a temporary electric solution would be installed to provide heating and hot water.
    4. All asbestos work would be completed by a specialist asbestos contractor.
  5. Around July 2023 the landlord announced the building was to be decommissioned and it wrote to all residents to advise of the options available in terms of rehousing. It met with the resident on 13 September 2023 to discuss to the options available and the support it could offer.
  6. On 25 September 2023 the landlord requested a valuation of the resident’s home, and an offer was sent to the resident on 12 October 2023. It confirmed an independent financial advisor had been procured and the case would be considered by its ‘Exception Panel’ in the new year once a case assessment had been completed.
  7. On 6 January 2024 the landlord responded to a complaint made by the resident. The response letter has not been provided as evidence.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to us on 18 April 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns, including:
    1. The safety of building not been adequately addressed.
    2. The landlord initially selling the lease to a flat in a building that was structurally unsafe.
    3. The handling of the proposed ending of the lease and move to another property.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 May 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. When the resident exercised her right to buy, there were no plans to decommission the building and the building was compliant with all safety regulations until the gas leak was found at which time, it acted swiftly to disconnect the gas and ensure residents were safe.
    2. It wrote to residents to explain the situation and based 2 officers in the block to answer any questions following the decision to decommission the building.
    3. It was not ending the lease but was seeking a voluntary sale to the landlord to which the process had been explained to the resident.
    4. The property had been valued and the offer, which included compensation in recognition of the financial and affordability needs associated with moving, had been sent to the resident.
    5. It had no legal duty to provide an alternative property or financial assistance, but said it recognised some residents may struggle to replace their property without support and so a caseworker had been assigned to the resident.
  10. The resident escalated the complaint on 28 May 2024, unhappy with the “inadequate” response which she said failed to address the questions asked.
  11. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 2 July 2024, when it said:
    1. It was satisfied the initial response had addressed the safety concerns appropriately and that it had explained its position several times.
    2. It was satisfied it had engaged with the resident and offered the appropriate support which included an “exceptional offer of compensation,” a market valuation, access to a financial advisor, disturbance costs, a dedicated resource, and a chance to discuss any concerns on a weekly basis.
    3. It had provided information and advice on the equity scheme on 5 June 2024, and while it acknowledged it could have provided more information in its initial response, it did not find any service failure in its handling of the matter.
  12. The resident referred the complaint to us on 19 September 2024 when she said the landlord had failed to address the concerns raised. The resident said she wanted:
    1. The landlord to allow her to move to a property of her choice and for it to own equity in it.
    2. An increased amount of compensation after being forced to move out of the building after living in unsafe conditions due the landlord’s negligence.

Reasons

  1. Paragraphs 42(f) and (o) of the Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

f) concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.

o) concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.

  1. The resident has claimed there has been gross negligence from the landlord in allowing her and other residents to live in a structurally unsafe building and for it to sell it to her as part of the Right to Buy process. While this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to determine if there has been negligence on the part of the landlord. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court.
  2. Similarly, while we are able to consider general communication surrounding its decision to decommission the building and offer to buy back her property, we are unable to assess the legality of the landlord’s decision. Given that the resident’s primary concerns are with this decision, this is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on these matters.
  3. Finally, the resident has noted her desire to be relocated to a property of her choice. We are unable to assess the housing needs of any other applicants for the landlord’s properties and so we are unable to order that the resident be given a priority. This outcome is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.