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

London Borough of Hounslow (202314082)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314082

London Borough of Hounslow

28 June 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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 handling of leaks in the garage damaging the resident’s possessions and subsequent compensation request.

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 about the landlord’s handling of leaks in the garage damaging the resident’s possessions and subsequent compensation request, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42g of the Scheme.

Summary of events

  1. The resident with her partner are joint tenants of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced in February 1997. The resident said she has paid for a garage from the landlord since 2015.
  2. On 19 December 2022 the resident first contacted the landlord about the leak in the garage. At first, the landlord associated it with condensation and not a leak. An inspection took place on 21 December 2022 where it was unable to identify a water leak affecting the garage. After 5 January 2023, the resident involved her councillor as the repairs were not made. Following this, the landlord gained access to a neighbouring property causing the leak and repaired the leak on 23 January 2023.
  3. On 3 February 2023 the resident was provided a temporary garage by the landlord as she was unable to use hers. The resident asked the landlord if it were able to replace the garage doors affected by the leaks and a new work order was raised by it on 6 February 2023.
  4. The resident complained on 1 March 2023 to the landlord about the delays in repair to the garage, her damaged possessions, and distress and inconvenience caused. She complained that in the inspection of 21 December 2022, the resident was told by its contractor the garage was not a residential property and they would not be able to provide an update until 5 January 2023. The councillor arranged for what could be salvaged to be removed from the garage to a different garage. The resident was unhappy about damaged to possessions and complete loss of goods. She wished to claim compensation totalling £3,500 for the following:
    1. personal possessions stored in the affected garage £954.67
    2. for the distress and inconvenience £2,545.33
  5. The landlord inspected the affected garage and its door on 2 March 2023. The door could not be ordered and required a door to be constructed in the landlord’s workshop. On the same date, the landlord told the resident if she wanted compensation for damages caused by a leak in the garage she would need to write or email its insurance department. It also told her to provide receipts or other evidence to support her claim.
  6. On 30 March 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said to her the lease for the garage contains clauses which states the garage could not be used for any purpose other than as a private garage for storage of a motorised vehicle and accessories. Further, it would not be held liable for damages to or loss of vehicle or other property. It admitted the repairs for the leak was not raised after 21 December 2022, until 17 January 2023 and then fixed on 23 January 2023. Replacement to the garage door was not completed at the time of writing. The landlord awarded £50 for the inconvenience caused and in recognition for the resident’s time and trouble.
  7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure on 26 April 2023. She was unhappy with the stage 1 response and challenged the fact of having nowhere else to store mobility scooters. She also said that she was never provided documentation that stated she was not allowed to store personal items in the garage. She also questioned why the landlord in February 2023 gave her a choice of temporary garages to store her personal items in. She also wanted to know why the landlord previously stored electrical tools in the garage before she rented it out. She felt if the landlord had repaired the leak quicker, she would not have been in this position and said it was negligent.
  8. The landlord had fitted a new door to the affected garage on 18 April 2023.
  9. On 18 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident exercising its discretion to not carry out a stage 2 complaint response. The landlord reiterated that she was not allowed to store personal items in the garage, and it was not responsible for damage, or loss of any property stored in the garage. The landlord owned multiple garages and allowed the resident to use another garage to store her belongings as an emergency measure. It elaborated that insurance claims were outside of its internal complaints process. It also clarified the duration of repairs. The garage leak was repaired in 18 working days. The garage door was completed in 50 working days.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses and wrote to this Service on 1 July 2023. She felt the landlord was negligent in their duty of care and the compensation offered was insufficient. She confirmed she wanted us to investigate her concerns.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42g of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the terms and operation of commercial or contractual relationships, not connected with the resident’s application for, or occupation of, a property for residential purposes.
  2. Although the resident holds a tenancy agreement with the landlord stemming from 1997, the garage is a separate contract between the parties. This contract is not directly linked to the property, instead is rented on a licence agreement. The evidence shows the resident is a licensee of the garage from 30 March 2015 and she confirmed to this Service that she initially paid by direct debit.
  3. As above, this Service can only consider complaints that relate to a landlord’s housing activities. The garage is not to be used for storing personal items. Despite the resident saying she never received documentation to support this, evidence shows that these were the conditions of the garage between the parties, and it does not fall under the tenancy agreement of 1997.
  4. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the complaint about handling of leaks in the garage damaging the resident’s possessions and subsequent compensation request, does not concern actions or omissions taken by the provider of housing in its role as a landlord. As such, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42g of the Scheme.