Challenging an Ombudsman

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

If I understand you were letting a property, as a landlord, but there were issues with the condition. You maintain to told the solicitor about this before commencing the let (no idea why you would, but whatever) and thereafter you were taken to court (either by tenants or council) for provided a property in disrepair / not fit for habitation.

Possibly the OP was a tenant who is claiming they weren't properly advised about the implications of accepting a full repairing obligation in a commercial lease.

OP, I don't have anything to add about the ombudsman procedure but their decision doesn't affect your ability to pursue your solicitor for negligence, if that's the remedy you're seeking.

Comms69

Jane_Mortimer wrote: »

Coms69

I was the leasee

Again you're using unnecessarily vague terminology.


Were you a tenant? If so, why was a solicitor involved at all at the time of renting?


You must understand that, to be honest, the story doesn't add up. You'd be better off taking your time and writing out the whole thing - so people here can advise if you had any case at all, than providing answers which honestly confuse the issue more than anything else.

Comms69

davidmcn wrote: »

Possibly the OP was a tenant who is claiming they weren't properly advised about the implications of accepting a full repairing obligation in a commercial lease.

OP, I don't have anything to add about the ombudsman procedure but their decision doesn't affect your ability to pursue your solicitor for negligence, if that's the remedy you're seeking.

Good point. I hadn't considered a commercial lease.

Jane_Mortimer

Davidmcn that is very true and thank you for pointing it out. At least I still have that option.

I have to say though that I am really puzzled at the behaviour of the Ombudsman. He has a serious responsibility to make decisions. I am not saying for one minute that this is because he rules against me. If that were to happen I could accept it if he had made the decision using the evidence I sent him. However to lose because he is not quoting from my lease and saying I did not provide evidence when it is in black and white emails I feel very concerned.

Jane_Mortimer

Comms69 I was the person renting the property from a landlord. Tbh I am not asking for advice over how my solicitor dealt with the problem but concerned over the fact that the Ombudsman made his final decision quoting from a lease that is patently not mine and telling me I have lost because I did not provide evidence when I sent in 8 emails to the contrary and am now thinking he can’t have seen them.

Having been told by the Ombudsman office that I can not complain. This forum has provided me with the information that I can complain about the service and that I can continue to pursue my solicitor for negligence. That’s two options that I either didn’t know of or had slipped my mind.

ReadingTim

Are these inaccurate or irrelevant lease quotes material to your argument / case? If so, you might be able to claim that the decision is faulty due to inaccurate evidence.

But if it's not, then you're probably just clutching at straws and using minor and possibly irrelevant procedural points to reverse a decision which went against you - vexatious litigation basically.

Given the nature of their reply, I suspect the ombudsman has already come to that conclusion.

Jane_Mortimer

Reading Tim.
My lease says I have to yield up the property in the same condition as I found it. The Ombudsman is quoting from I don’t know where saying that the property had to be left in a lettable condition ready for a new tenant to move in. This isn’t his interpretation of the lease he is quoting. The trouble is nowhere in my lease does it have the clauses he is quoting and it makes a big difference.

I’m sorry folks going to have to end it here - hands can’t keep up but I have the information I need thank you.

Comms69

Im still none the wiser - if this was a residential letting - why a solicitor was involved. And if it's a commercial letting, what claim the OP has against her solicitor.

NeilCr

Comms69 wrote: »

Im still none the wiser - if this was a residential letting - why a solicitor was involved. And if it's a commercial letting, what claim the OP has against her solicitor.

Not really the point, though.

The OP has concerns about the process that the Ombudsman went through to come to their decision. Not the decision itself (indeed she said that she would accept the decision if she thought the all the evidence had been taken into consideration) The Ombudsman was happy to take on the case so, clearly, it was within their ambit.

OP isn't asking for opinions on the details of the case.

davidmcn

Comms69 wrote: »

Im still none the wiser - if this was a residential letting - why a solicitor was involved. And if it's a commercial letting, what claim the OP has against her solicitor.

As a tenant, you wouldn't want to accept a repairing obligation to put the property into any better condition than it was when you got it. So if it's not in great condition then usual advice would be to consider making the repairing obligation subject to a schedule of condition recording the initial state of the property. Tenant might have a claim if their solicitor didn't give them suitable advice about this - given the alleged wording of the lease I would guess they've ended up with a dispute about what "the same condition as I found it" actually meant.