Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202345681)

Decision
Case ID	202345681
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

1. The landlord visited the resident to discuss an allegation made against her. During the visit, the landlord identified the resident had a caravan parked on her driveway in a position it felt blocked her entrance door. It asked her to move the caravan away from the property. A contractor subsequently attended and asked the resident to move the caravan towards the property as it partly overhung and obstructed the pavement.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication with the resident in respect of an allegation against her.
   2. Communication with the resident in respect of a caravan on her driveway.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Reasonable redress in its communication with the resident in respect of an allegation against her.
   2. Reasonable redress in its communication with the resident in respect of a caravan on her driveway.
   3. Reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident in respect of an allegation against her

5. The landlord acted in line with its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy. It acknowledged there was an opportunity to make a service improvement as it could have provided her with more detail of the allegation. It offered redress by way of an apology that was proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation for the frustration caused to the resident. We think the apology offered satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s communication with the resident in respect of a caravan on her driveway

6. The landlord’s staff and contractor acted reasonably to make the resident aware of potential hazards. As a result of the complaint the landlord offered compensation for distress caused by its conflicting instructions. Despite there being no identified failings by individuals working for the landlord, the overall response was confused. The compensation offered was fair and a satisfactorily resolution to the complaint.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord acknowledged its delayed stage 2 response. It offered redress that was proportionate to the failing identified in our investigation for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The compensation offered satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Putting things right

8. 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.

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £100 as offered during its internal complaints procedure. This is to acknowledge its failure in providing conflicting advice about the caravan and its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that compensation of £100 is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 December 2023	The resident sent a “cease and desist” letter to the landlord. She asked it to consider her letter as a complaint. She said as follows: The landlord’s staff had attended unannounced that day. They said they were there due to a report of an altercation. However, they had not been able to provide details of the allegation. She said the unannounced visit had been the second of its type by the landlord in the last year where it had not been able to provide details of an allegation. The staff members told her a caravan parked on her driveway was too close to her door. They also said she should not have an electrical wire connected to the caravan. She disputed the caravan was too close to her front door. She said there were other escape routes from the property in an emergency. She advised both her and her son had disabilities. She alleged the landlord’s actions were harassment, discrimination and a breach of common law.
9 January 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It said as follows: Its legal team had sent the resident a letter about health and safety concerns in respect of the caravan. It acknowledged the resident was able to have a caravan under the tenancy agreement. However, it explained the caravan was blocking the exit of the property. It was also concerned about the safety of the electrics to the caravan. It had asked for a fire safety assessment to be carried out of the electrics. It apologised that the resident felt it had approached her without evidence of the allegation. It confirmed it did not have an open ASB case against her. It explained it would not always be able to give full details of allegations as a complainant may wish to remain anonymous. It had raised the lack of information about the allegation with its management to make sure correct procedures would be followed in future.
29 January 2024	The resident made a complaint as follows: A contractor had attended that day for an unrelated matter. They told the resident the position of the caravan obstructed the pavement. She explained she had moved the caravan away from her front door and now she had been told to move it back again. She felt the conflicting advice was contrary to a number of laws and the terms of her cease and desist letter.
7 March 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said as follows: It acknowledged the contractor had noted the caravan obstructed the pavement. Its contractor had identified a legitimate concern. It explained it did not deal with the obstruction of pavements, but the local council could pursue this. It advised it had a responsibility to check the safety of the caravan from a fire and electrical perspective. This check had been concluded and it would not take further action. It apologised if the resident had found the letter from its legal department distressing. It had reviewed the letter and did not consider it to be threatening. It noted the resident’s son had requested all communication be from its legal team. It had agreed to give notice of any intended visits and provide details of any allegations of ASB in the future. It partially upheld the complaint because of the conflicting information the resident had been told to move the caravan back from the property and then towards the property. To acknowledge the distress caused by its mixed messaging and its delayed complaint response it offered £100 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matter to us and said as follows: The landlord had not taken into account the seriousness of the contraventions of the law. These included breaches of the Housing Act, Protection from Harassment Act 1997, breaching an injunction and trespass to property. She also felt the landlord had breached the data protection act by passing on information to the council. The compensation was not sufficient. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord had tried to “create a false accident” by the caravan hinge.

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 communication with the resident in respect of an allegation against her
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

9. The resident believes the landlord acted contrary to the law when it attended her property. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord acted contrary to the law. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For this reason, we have not investigated allegations the resident has made that the landlord has failed to comply with the law or order of the court.
10. Our role is to consider whether the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s allegations as part of her complaint.

What we have investigated

11. The landlord visited the resident unannounced on 8 December 2023 to discuss a report that she had been involved in an altercation. The resident complained that landlord’s staff had not been able to provide her with details of the reported allegation.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out how the landlord will respond to reports of ASB, along with some behaviour reported to it which does not meet the threshold to be considered ASB under the terms of its policy. The policy says that even if behaviour is not ASB, the landlord can discuss the matter with, and offer support to, both parties.
13. We have not been provided with evidence of the nature of the allegation made against the resident. However, it was appropriate under the terms of its policy for the landlord to speak to the resident after it had received an allegation involving her. Speaking to the resident about the report was in line with the steps the landlord can take to support parties following such a report.
14. The resident told the landlord both her and her son had disabilities. The landlord was responsive to this disclosure and asked how it could support the resident and if reasonable adjustments were needed. The resident confirmed no adjustments were needed.
15. Within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its staff had not been able to provide details of the allegation to the resident. It explained why it was not always possible to do so and that complainants may wish to be anonymous. It also explained the circumstances where it may attend an address unannounced. These explanations were reasonable in respect of managing the resident’s expectations about how it may respond, should there be further allegations in the future.
16. The landlord reassured the resident it did not have any ASB cases open against her. It acknowledged its staff members had not provided sufficient details of the allegation. It advised it had referred the finding to its management team in order to learn from the complaint. It committed to make sure correct procedures would be followed in the future.
17. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
18. The landlord apologised and took learning from the complaint. We consider the landlord’s apology was proportionate to the failing we have identified in our investigation. As such, the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint	The landlord’s communication with the resident in respect of a caravan on her driveway
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

19. Within her correspondence, the resident made a complaint about a letter from the council’s environmental health team about the caravan. We can only investigate complaints about councils where they are acting as the landlord under a licence, lease or a social housing tenancy. In this case, the council was not acting in this capacity because it was acting in respect of an environmental health concern. As such, we have no power to investigate the complaint about a letter from the council’s environmental health team about the caravan. The resident may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman should she wish to pursue this matter.
20. The resident believes the landlord had breached the Data Protection Act by passing her information to the council. We do not investigate complaints where the matter complained about falls within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman or regulatory body. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if she remains dissatisfied about the matter.
21. Within her referral to us, the resident said the landlord had tried to create a false accident caused by the caravan hinge. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about her belief it had created a false accident to the landlord. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the resident’s concerns that the landlord had tried to create a false accident caused by the caravan hinge.

What we have investigated

22. When the landlord visited the resident, it saw a caravan on her driveway was close to the front door of the property. It believed the position of the caravan could block easy exit from the property in an emergency. It explained its concerns to the resident and advised her to move the caravan away from the door. The advice, to ensure there was sufficient space near the front door, was reasonable in the circumstances.
23. The landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident and explained the position of the caravan could be a potential hazard. The legal team also advised it had asked for a fire safety assessment to be carried out in respect of an electric charging cable going to the caravan.
24. A contractor subsequently attended the property for an unrelated matter. They noted the caravan was partly obstructing the pavement. They advised the resident to move the caravan forward so that it did not obstruct the pavement. Although the contactor was not at the property in respect of the caravan, it was appropriate for them to be aware for any potential hazards and to advise the resident accordingly. As such, the advice of the contractor was reasonable.
25. During its internal complaints procedure, the landlord explained it had responsibility to check the safety of the caravan. It advised it would not take any further action in respect of the caravan following a fire safety assessment. It acknowledged the resident had been told to move the caravan away from and then towards the property. It explained it would not be involved about whether the pavement was obstructed by the caravan. It advised this would be a matter for the council.
26. In conclusion, it was appropriate for the landlord’s staff to be mindful of potential hazards when attending the property for unrelated matters. On both occasions its staff and contractor noticed potential hazards and advised the resident accordingly.
27. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident. The compensation was to acknowledge the inconvenience caused because the resident had been told to move the caravan twice in opposite directions and for a delay in complaint handling.
28. We do not consider the advice of either the staff member or contractor to have been a failure. This is because both had acted upon the potential hazard at the time, namely the caravan being too close to the door and the caravan obstructing the pavement. However, the landlord’s overall response was confusing and contradictory.
29. We consider the landlord’s offer of compensation went over and above what was required. As such, the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

30. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time said it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aimed to respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
31. The resident made her complaint on 8 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 December 2023. This was 1 working day over its stated acknowledgement timeframe.
32. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 9 January 2024. This was 5 working days after the acknowledgement. The total time taken for the landlord to respond at stage 1 was 11 working days. This was in line with the total time stated in its complaints policy for its stage 1 response.
33. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 January 2024. She subsequently made a new complaint on 29 January 2024. The landlord advised the resident on 7 February 2024 that it needed more time to respond. It sent the stage 2 response on 7 March 2024. This was 35 working days, 15 working days outside the landlord’s stated timeframe.
34. Although the stage 2 response was delayed, the delay was at least in part, due to the new complaint raised by the resident during this time. As the new complaint was so closely linked to the original complaint, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the new complaint and address both matters together. The landlord kept in contact with the resident about the need for additional time to investigate.
35. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the additional time it had needed to respond. The landlord combined its complaint handling failure with the advice given about moving the caravan and offered £100 compensation for both matters. This amount is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there were failures which adversely impacted a resident.
36. Although it is not clear what proportion of the compensation was for complaint handling, we consider £100 to be reasonable and an amount in line with our remedies guidance. As such, the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This amounts to reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s recordkeeping. The evidence provided to us enabled us to effectively carry out our investigation.

Communication

38. The landlord’s communications with the resident were generally good. Its responses were timely and it explained its findings clearly. We would advise the landlord against combining compensation in its future complaint responses. This is because by combining compensation, it is not clear how much has been awarded for each aspect of complaint. By addressing compensation separately, for any failures identified, this would increase the transparency of its responses and more effectively demonstrate its decision making.