City of Lincoln Council (202513116)

Decision
Case ID	202513116
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	City of Lincoln Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a 3-storey block. He reported that several neighbours have a dog, which he said their tenancy agreements do not allow. He has complained about the landlord’s response to his concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about neighbours having dogs in the block.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about neighbours having dogs in the block.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord initially took reasonable and proportionate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns. It completed the actions set out in its complaint responses, visited the block, and spoke with residents. However, its communication in relation to nuisance was poor. The landlord delayed taking further action and missed opportunities to set out how it would respond to the resident’s nuisance reports. These delays prolonged the situation for the resident and were unreasonable.
7. The landlord fell short of initially acknowledging the complaint within the timeframe set out in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), but it subsequently responded in a timely manner. However, it failed to log a new complaint after the resident raised new concerns, which was not consistent with its policy and the Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior manager the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 made up as follows: £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by refusing to log a new complaint £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused by its poor communication and delays in responding to the nuisance reports This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Risk assessment and action plan order The resident has told us and the landlord that dogs are off lead in communal areas, barking, and fouling on the green space. This might amount to antisocial behaviour. The landlord must complete an up-to-date risk assessment with the resident and provide an action plan for resolving the dog nuisance. This may include but not be limited to how the resident can report nuisance and the timeframes and actions the landlord can take. The landlord must provide a copy of the risk assessment and action plan to the resident and us by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 8 and 16 July 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. He reported that neighbours in the block owned dogs. He said their tenancy agreement only allowed for registered assistance dogs in multi-storey blocks. He told it a freedom of information response showed no one in the block had requested permission between 2019 and 2021. He asked the landlord to take action.
30 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. In summary, it said: the resident is right in that the tenancy agreement says it does not allow dogs unless the property has direct garden access the tenancy agreement says it will not refuse permission unreasonably the flats did not have garden access, but there were green spaces near the block it considers pet requests on a case-by-case basis it would review the wording in the tenancy agreements and the Pet Policy The landlord also asked the resident whether the dogs were causing a nuisance and offered to investigate if they were.
12 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He said his neighbours were not keeping to the tenancy agreement and the landlord knew this. He did not feel its offer to review its policy and tenancy agreements resolved his concerns.
20 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It agreed that the presence of dogs in the block meant the tenancy agreement had not been followed. It asked the resident to provide details of the neighbours who had dogs. If he did not want to share this information, it said it would contact all of the residents in the block. It repeated that it would investigate any reports of animal nuisance.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said residents still had dogs. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns. To resolve his complaint, he has asked the landlord to: apologise compensate him act on the terms of the tenancy agreement

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports about neighbours having dogs in the block
Finding	Maladministration

8. There were events that happened after the landlord issued its final complaint response. As these events relate to the resident’s original complaint, we have decided that it is appropriate to investigate beyond the landlord’s complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the residents reports about neighbours having dogs between July 2024 and January 2025.
9. We have also considered the resident’s reports of dog nuisance. The resident first raised this issue on 2 September 2024. The landlord refused to investigate, saying the resident had already completed its complaints process. As the landlord had a fair opportunity to consider the issue and review its actions, we have included it in this investigation.
10. On 8 and 16 July 2024 the resident made a complaint about dogs in flats. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 July 2024. It agreed the tenancy agreement did not allow pets in flats. It explained that the tenancy agreement says it will not unreasonably refuse permission and that it considers requests on a case-by-case basis. This was consistent with our findings, as the tenancy agreement does contain both of these terms.
11. The landlord also noted that, while the flats do not have direct garden access, there was a green space near the block. By considering whether residents had access to an alternative outdoor area, the landlord showed it had assessed the estate layout as part of its decision making. This was consistent with its Pet Policy, which said it would be flexible when considering requests.
12. The landlord promised to review the wording in the tenancy agreement and Pet Policy. This showed it had considered whether the documents were up-to-date and reflective of its approach at that time. This was reasonable and aimed to avoid any future confusion for its residents.
13. The landlord did not directly address the resident’s point that no one had requested pet permission. However, it did say it would investigate reports about dogs linked to specific addresses. It also asked whether the dogs were causing any nuisance. The tenancy agreement and the Pet Policy required the landlord to investigate nuisance reports. Considering this, its response was fair and showed it was willing to act if the resident was being impacted.
14. On 12 August 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. He said the dogs in the block breached the tenancy agreement and was unhappy that residents could retrospectively apply for permission. He felt the landlord’s offer to review its policy and tenancy agreement did not resolve his complaint.
15. On 20 August 2024 the landlord issued its final response. It repeated that it agreed there had been a breach of the tenancy agreement. It said it would speak with residents who had dogs but needed further information to do so. This was reasonable as the landlord needed accurate details to carry out an investigation.
16. The landlord also said that if the resident did not want to identify specific flats, it would contact every resident in the block. This showed the landlord was willing to act without placing the responsibility on the resident. This met its duties under the tenancy agreement to investigate potential breaches of tenancy.
17. Between 21August and 4 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord 5times. He said he should not have to identify the neighbours with dogs. He asked the landlord what action it had taken to address his concerns. He also reported dog fouling, barking, and being off-lead in the communal areas. He explained that doors were slamming when his neighbour took their dog out, which disturbed his sleep. He contacted his MP about the nuisance and because dogs remained in the block.
18. During this time, the landlord’s communication was poor. It did not respond to all of the resident’s emails. This likely caused him frustration and made him feel that his concerns were not taken seriously. Clearer communication and updates would have helped the resident understand what steps the landlord was taking and any associated timeframes.
19. On 4 October 2024 the landlord responded to the MP. It said there had been a ‘technical’ breach of the tenancy agreement where residents kept dogs without permission. It confirmed that it had visited the block and spoken with residents. It highlighted that there were green spaces nearby and said it needed to consider proportionate enforcement action, as eviction was the most severe step.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider what action was fair and proportionate in the circumstances. It visited the block, spoke to residents, reviewed its policies, and considered outdoor space. These actions showed it took the reports seriously while balancing the needs and wellbeing of other residents.
21. On 7 October 2024 the landlord told the resident it had visited residents, but it could not share the details of any conversations. It reminded him that he had exhausted the complaints process about the tenancy breach. This was reasonable and consistent with its Complaints Policy, which says it will not investigate issues it has already responded to. It also showed the landlord met its stage 2 promise to investigate dog ownership.
22. However, it was not reasonable to dismiss the new concerns the resident raised about dog‑related nuisance. The landlord missed the opportunity to set out its approach to further nuisance reports and how it would manage them. This likely undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of his concerns and may have left him feeling that the new issues were not being taken seriously.
23. Between 9 October 2024 and 5 January 2025 the resident contacted the landlord at least 4 times. He reported further nuisance, including doors slamming, dogs fouling, barking, and being off lead. He also asked how to request an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case review meeting.
24. In response, the landlord recorded that it visited the neighbour, repaired the door and confirmed with the resident that the noise had reduced. These were reasonable steps to take to address the resident’s concerns. However, the resident has since reported new doors were fitted which were also noisy.
25. The landlord also provided information to the resident on how to request an ASB case review meeting, which was reasonable.
26. In January 2025 the landlord reviewed its Pet Policy as promised in its stage 2 response. It introduced a new Pets, Medical Assistance Dogs and Emotional Support Animals Policy. This was reasonable and showed the landlord followed through on its promise.
27. The resident continued to report nuisance throughout 2025. During this time, the landlord did not log a new complaint or explain how it would manage these ongoing reports. It did not take any further action until January 2026, when it contacted the resident to complete a risk assessment.
28. The landlord should not have taken more than 12 months to complete a risk assessment with the resident. Its Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Policy says it will carry out a risk assessment upon receiving a report of ASB. While doing a risk assessment would not necessarily resolve the nuisance, the delay in doing so meant the landlord had missed opportunities to understand the impact and how it could support the resident. The assessment would have helped guide it for the best route to resolve the issues while taking into consideration the resident’s circumstances.
29. Our role is to assess the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns and whether they were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s response to the reported tenancy breach was reasonable. It considered the wellbeing of all residents and considered whether any nuisance had been reported at that time.
30. However, after the resident began reporting dog‑related nuisance, the landlord did not take timely steps to respond to or manage those reports. Its delayed communication and lack of clear action meant the resident had to continue raising the same issues without clarity about what the landlord would do. This unreasonably prolonged the resident’s uncertainty and the impact of the ongoing nuisance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
32. The landlord has a published Complaints Policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
33. On 8 July 2024 the resident raised a complaint. He contacted the landlord again on 16 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint that day and apologised it had not done so sooner. This met the 5 working day timeframe set out in the Code and its policy after the second contact, but not the first. This shortcoming likely caused the resident inconvenience.
34. On 30 July 2024 the landlord issued its response, 10 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This met its policy and the Code, which require a response within 10 working days. The landlord missed the opportunity to apologise for its initial oversight.
35. On 12 August 2024 the resident escalated his complaint. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged this. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the impact on the resident was limited, as he received the stage 2 response on 20 August 2024. This was 7 working days after his escalation request. This met the 20-working day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code.
36. On 2 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and raised new concerns. The landlord refused to log a complaint and told the resident he had exhausted the complaints process.
37. Some of the issues the resident raised were new and should have been logged as a complaint in line with the Code. By not doing so, the landlord failed to consider those new issues. This prevented the resident from progressing his concerns through the complaints procedure. This likely caused the resident frustration and made him feel that the landlord had not taken his concerns seriously.

The landlord’s Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance both suggest compensation awards between £25 to £100. We have made an order of £100 compensation in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

38. The landlord’s responses considered the impact of enforcement and the wellbeing of all residents before acting. This supports fair and balanced decision‑making.
39. The landlord said eviction was the most severe sanction but did not explain the full range of possible actions. Setting out all proportionate options can help residents understand why a landlord cannot always take immediate or severe action.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord kept thorough and well‑maintained records for this case. These records clearly set out the actions taken and the decisions made. Good record keeping enables a landlord to track its handling of a matter, demonstrate how and when decisions were reached, and provide a clear audit trail when responding to residents’ concerns.

Communication

41. Logging and acknowledging complaints on time is essential for compliance. Even minor delays can sometimes create uncertainty and undermine residents’ confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord could take the opportunity to review this case to ensure it understands the difference between concerns it has already addressed through a complaint response and any new issues that should be logged as a complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
42. There were delays in responding to several emails from the resident. More consistent and timely communication would have helped provide assurance that the resident’s concerns were being considered and had not been overlooked.