Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Walsall Housing Group Limited (202313560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313560

Walsall Housing Group Limited

31 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the allegations of noise by the resident’s dog.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as sometimes there are reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman has determined that the complaint set out above is not within this Service’s jurisdiction under paragraphs and 42.e. of the Scheme.

Background

  1. Allegations of noise by the resident’s dog were raised in January 2022. Between January 2022 and October 2022, the landlord worked with the resident to try and resolve the matter. This included among other things, arranging mediation.
  2. On 19 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that she had breached her tenancy agreement. The landlord set out that 1 of the reasons was due to the resident’s dog barking for long periods and causing disturbance to her neighbours. The landlord advised that as it had already attempted mediation, that if it continued to receive reports it would ask for an injunction.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord after a meeting on 1 November 2022. She said that the landlord had not handled the allegations made against her fairly, nor had it considered concerns she had raised about noise in the same way. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2022. The resident requested to escalate her complaint, but the landlord advised as there were ongoing legal proceedings it would suspend its complaint procedure.
  4. An application for an injunction was made by the landlord in February 2023 and received by the court on 6 March 2023. The relevant paperwork was served on the resident on 18 April 2023 and a court date was set for 18 May 2023. The injunction application was made, in part, because of the alleged nuisance caused by the resident’s dog barking.
  5. The resident agreed an undertaking on 18 May 2023. The undertaking stated, among other things, that she would not keep a dog at her property for the following 12 months.
  6. Following the court proceedings ending, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023. The landlord offered the resident a total of £350 to recognise the delay in its complaint handling, that it had not treated the resident’s complaint related to her neighbour’s dog barking in line with its policy, and for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
  2. As the landlord issued court proceedings specifically related to the resident’s dog barking, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident had the opportunity to raise the issues of her complaint as part of these legal proceedings.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the allegations made against her, and the unfairness of how the landlord handled allegations she made against her neighbour’s and other dogs barking in the area.
  4. These reasons given by the resident were closely related. She considered the actions taken by the landlord to be unfair, and that this unfairness was highlighted by the differences in how it had treated her dog barking compared to her reports of other dogs barking. Both issues are ones that could have been raised as part of the resident’s defence in the legal proceedings issued by the landlord.
  5. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme, this complaint is not one that this Service can consider and is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.