Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (202014943)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014943

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

28 April 2023

 

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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s application to court for an injunction following reports of Anti-Social Behaviour made against the residents.
    2. Information the landlord included within the court bundle, which the resident believes was a data breach.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the above complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The residents are married and have held a joint secure tenancy with the landlord since October 2018. They live in a three bedroom property with their children.
  2. Between May and August 2020, the resident’s reported incidents of ASB by several neighbours. During the same time period, the landlord received counter allegations about the residents from their neighbours.
  3. On 20 October 2020, the landlord served the residents with a notice of hearing and a bundle of evidential papers it had against the residents, outlining its intention to seek an injunction against them.
  4. An interim injunction was granted to the landlord by the county court on 26 October 2020 and was varied by the court on 4 November 2021. As well as the variation of the injunction, the court ordered that the residents send the court and landlord, all witness statements and any other evidence upon which they intended to rely on in response to the allegations made against them, by 2 December 2021.
  5. The case was listed for a further hearing on 8 January 2021.
  6. On 27 November 2020 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He expressed concern that he experienced ASB from his neighbours and had reports of ASB made against him. He did not believe that the landlord had dealt with the reports impartially. In addition, the resident complained that he believed that the landlord had insufficient evidence to take him to court. He also said that he believed there had been a data breach by the landlord, as it had disclosed information from the police within the bundle of evidential papers.
  7. The landlord provided its stage one response on 23 December 2020. In response to the complaints about its response to the ASB reports and the evidence it provided to the court, it said that the resident did not provide evidence to support their allegations of bias in its handling of the ASB reports and did not uphold the complaints. It advised the resident that they could articulate any concerns or evidence they had, as part of their defence in the injunction proceedings.
  8. The landlord confirmed that it retrieved information from the police on a lawful basis. However, it accepted that that there was an error in it providing this information within the evidential bundle without the appropriate application to the court to allow it to disclose the information as evidence. It upheld this aspect of the complaint and explained that it was willing to remove unredacted statements from the file and seek permission from the court to rely on redacted statements.
  9. On 25 February 2021, the residents gave an undertaking to the court in lieu of the injunction. The parties agreed to be bound by the terms of the injunction for 12 months.
  10. The resident escalated their complaint in March 2021 and the landlord provided a stage two response to the complaint on 23 April 2021. The landlord upheld the stage one findings and noted that the proceedings had not taken place because the resident had agreed to a 12 month undertaking.
  11. The resident brought their complaint to this Service explaining that the landlord had not acted impartially in responding to the ASB reports and had no reasonable grounds to take the matter to court.
  12. Since the complaint finalised the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord made another application to the court in November 2021 as it believed that the residents had breached the terms of the undertaking.  The residents signed another undertaking on 25 February 2022.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not review complaints which concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
  2. The residents’ complaint is that they do not consider the reports have been dealt with correctly or impartially and that the landlord did not have sufficient evidence to take them to court.
  3. As indicated by the court order dated 4 November 2020 and the landlord’s subsequent complaint responses, the residents had the opportunity to raise their concerns as part of their defence against the injunction proceedings the landlord brought against them.
  4. Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not review complaints which concern matters that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  5. The residents’ have complained that they believe there had been a data breach when the landlord disclosed information it received from the police within the evidential bundle that formed part of the court documents.
  6. Complaints about data protection are considered by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), the independent regulator for data protection and information rights law. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about the concern of the data breach, as this falls within the remit of the ICO.