Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202004776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004776

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

31 August 2021

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s allegation that a member of its staff assaulted him on 12 April 2018.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. On 12 April 2018 there was an incident between the resident and one of the landlord’s neighbourhood managers. Whilst one of the neighbouring properties was being deep cleaned by the landlord, the resident sought to gain entry to the property and the neighbourhood manager prevented him from doing so. The resident said that he was seeking to recover his neighbour’s tobacco from their property for them.
5. During the incident the resident alleged that the neighbourhood manager assaulted him. The resident contacted the Police but no further action was taken by the Police. The resident also submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding the alleged assault.
6. The landlord took a different view of the incident, adding it as another example of the resident acting in an inappropriate way towards its staff in its evidence in an ongoing anti-social behaviour case against the resident that it was pursuing through the courts.
7. The landlord did not progress the complaint as the matters complained about were subject to legal proceedings.
8. On 2 May 2018 the court considered the landlord’s application for an injunction against the resident regarding his behaviour towards its staff. The events of the 12 April 2018 were detailed in the landlord’s witness statements used to form part of an injunction application against the resident. The court records confirm that the resident was present at the hearing and that the landlord’s witness statements, dated 23 April and 24 April 2018 were read by the court. The resident also had legal representation at the court hearing. The evidence provided by the landlord was considered by the court and an Injunction Order with Power of Arrest was served on the resident the same day.
9. The court ordered that the resident was forbidden from communicating with any of the landlord’s staff, except for a named contact. The Court ordered that the Injunction Order with Power of Arrest should remain in place until further notice.
10. On 5 June 2019 the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord regarding a member of its staff assaulting him on 12 April 2018 and its actions following his allegations. This service has not been advised of the exact date the injunction ended. However, the landlord’s records note that by the time the resident logged his complaint the injunction had expired.
11. The landlord considered the resident’s complaint under its formal complaints process. In its stage one response the landlord confirmed that the resident had called the police at the time but due to a lack of evidence no further action was taken by the police and the case was closed. The landlord said that the details of the events of 12 April 2018 were included in its witness statements that were presented as part of its Injunction application in May 2018 and that the Courts were satisfied with the evidence presented at the time.
12. The complaint progressed through the landlord’s formal complaints process and the landlord issued its final response on 1 June 2020. The landlord’s position remained the same as that in its stage one response. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

13. Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
14. The resident has complained to this service that the landlord sought the injunction in May 2018 as a ‘‘smokescreen’’ to avoid considering his complaint about the alleged assault on 12 April 2018, and that the landlord’s aim was to use any breach of that injunction as grounds to seek possession of his property. The resident has claimed that the landlord failed to submit the evidence from one of the members of staff who were present when the alleged assault occurred on 12 April 2018 as he would have used the opportunity to question that witness during the court hearing.
15. The issues the resident is now raising were subject to Court proceedings on 12 May 2018. The resident attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Court records evidence that the landlord’s witness statements which covered the events of 12 April 2018 were read out in court. If the resident had concerns about the legitimacy of the landlord’s case and the evidence it provided, he had the opportunity to raise his concerns as part of those legal proceedings.
16. Having reviewed all the evidence relating to this complaint, and as all the evidence relates to matters that have been the subject of legal proceeding, I can confirm that under Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot investigate any element of this complaint.