From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202227007)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227007

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

23 April 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 decision to apply for an injunction against the resident.

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 our jurisdiction to investigate under paragraph 41.c. and 42.e. of the Scheme.

Background

  1. The landlord opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case on 3 January 2023 after a report was made relating to the resident’s actions.
  2. Following this, on 9 January 2023 the landlord was contacted by the police who let them know that there had been an altercation between the resident and some neighbours which resulted in the resident being arrested.
  3. On 10 January 2023, the landlord told the police that due to the seriousness of the matter it had referred the case to its legal team. Between 10 and 13 January 2023, the landlord liaised with various parties to obtain witness statements and a background on any health issues the resident’s had.
  4. An injunction application was made to the court without notice. The injunction application included 5 clauses, one of which was to exclude the resident from entering the streets where she and her neighbours lived. This meant the resident would be excluded from her property.
  5. On 13 January 2023, the Judge granted 4 of the 5 clauses but adjourned the case to allow service to the resident for the exclusion element of the injunction. The resident was served with the relevant paperwork on 16 January 2023.
  6. The hearing for the injunction took place on 17 January 2023, and all clauses of the injunction order were granted, alongside a power to arrest. The resident did not attend this hearing.
  7. On 8 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint saying that the use of the injunction was unfair. She described her view of what happened and made counter allegations against her neighbours.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2023. It said that it sought a civil injunction following a serious incident. Part of this order was an exclusion which meant the resident could not return to her property for 12 months. It said that the resident was given 5 days to attend court to make representations. It also told the resident that should she wish to challenge, amend or vary the order she would need to make an application to the court. The landlord provided advice on support agencies such as Citizens Advice.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint 27 April 2023. On 27 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said:
    1. information was obtained from social services and the NHS trust – this was shared with the court as part of the injunction hearing and to consider safeguarding risks
    2. it had followed its ASB policy and considered the actions taken to be reasonable and proportionate to the allegations – therefore the complaint was not upheld
    3. following the injunction hearing it did not respond within its 5-day response time to the residents contact of 16 February 2023
    4. it would offer £100 compensation – £50 for the delay in communication and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 41.c. of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given”.
  2. In this case the resident has said that it was unfair that an injunction application had been made against her by the landlord. However, the court decided to grant the application based on the merits of the landlord’s case. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, this complaint is not one that we can consider and is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
  3. 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”.
  4. As the landlord issued court proceedings to obtain an injunction, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident had opportunity to raise the issues of her complaint as part of these legal proceedings.
  5. The resident was unhappy with elements of the witness statements provided by the alleged victims and the landlord’s ASB officer. In her complaint and communication with our Service, she has said that the facts in the witness statements were wrong and that she was a victim of ASB. She made counter allegations against the neighbours, but the same action had not been considered against anyone else.
  6. The reasons given by the resident are closely related. She considered the actions taken by the landlord to be unfair, and that this unfairness was highlighted by how differently it had treated her compared to other tenants.
  7. The resident had the opportunity to raise these points as part of her defence in the legal proceedings issued by the landlord. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme, this complaint is not one that we can consider and is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.