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

Wigan Council (202322214)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322214

Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

6 May 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding a neighbour’s dog.

Background

  1. The resident was a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom first-floor flat owned by a local council. The tenancy started in May 2011 and ended in March 2023. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. Prior to the resident’s complaint he states he experienced ASB from a neighbour and their “dangerous” dog. He alleged the dog had attacked his own dog on 4 separate occasions between 2013 to 2021. He said he moved out of the property on or around November 2021 as he felt unsafe.
  3. On 18 February 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction with a historical decision by the police and courts to return the neighbour’s dog. He said the court confirmed it as a dangerous breed and therefore he considered the landlord should not allow it in the flats. He also said the neighbour had recently built a fence in the communal area to exercise the dog. He said he continued to feel unsafe and was no longer living at his flat. He also made allegations about the landlord’s staff and “demanded” their resignation.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 March 2022. Its response said it:
    1. Had investigated his allegations about staff handling of the dog reports. It was satisfied with their actions to support him and to keep him informed.
    2. Would resend him letters regarding actions taken which he said he had not received.
    3. Would ensure the neighbour removed the fence from the communal garden.
    4. Believed advice regarding the installation of the fence had come from the police, which it would address.
    5. Would remind the neighbour to have the dog on the lead and muzzled when outside.
    6. Was sorry if the actions of the neighbour had caused any distress or worsened his mental health. However, it would not tolerate the resident’s behaviour and threats towards its staff.
    7. Was unable to remove the dog at this stage as the courts had found the neighbour legally entitled to keep it.
    8. Would seek further advice from the police and take action if the neighbour failed to control the dog.
    9. Had received information that he had not been living at his flat since November 2021 and asked him to return. It considered measures in place ensured his safety and welcomed a better working relationship between him and its staff.
  5. On or around 17 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He described being with the police due to a welfare concern regarding his mental health. He said the police told him the neighbour did not need to muzzle the dog. He also said the police considered the dog to be on private property. He was unhappy with these explanations. He said the landlord should remove the dog and prosecute the neighbour who was “delusional, paranoid, and dealing drugs.”
  6. On 13 April 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it was satisfied with its handling of his concerns and its stage 1 response. It explained the meaning of private property and its position regarding the neighbour keeping the dog muzzled. As he had not felt safe returning to his home, its teams continued to work together and with the police to address matters. As such, the dog no longer lived at the property and it had made arrangements for the removal of the fence. The landlord urged him to return to his property.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He described leaving the property as he did not feel safe while the dog remained. He said he told the landlord he was not living at the property and did not abandon it. Therefore, the council should not have continued to charge him rent and council tax which has left him in debt after possession proceedings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 27 September 2023 the resident remained unhappy and brought the complaint to us. We explained that he would have had until 13 April 2023 to bring the ASB matter to us. Therefore, he had contacted us 5 months after the expiry of our 12 month timeframe. However, the resident explained his mental health difficulties. And he also said he believed his MP was handling the matter but he never received a response.
  2. Given this information, we have considered it reasonable to use our discretion. As such, we will assess the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB regarding a neighbour’s dog from 18 February 2022. However, the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding the police and court’s historical handling of matters are both outside of our jurisdiction.
  3. He also raised additional concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of possession proceedings. However, this did not form part of the complaint made on 18 February 2022. Furthermore, the tenancy ended in March 2023, another 11 months after the landlord’s stage 2 final response. As such, this will not form part of our investigation.
  4. We encourage residents to raise complaints to their landlords at the time the events happened. We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to a residents concern.
  5. In contact with us in September 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction regarding debts accrued due to council tax charges. We informed him of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Any dissatisfaction regarding this is outside of our jurisdiction.
  6. In contact with us the resident also said the landlord’s actions had affected his health and finances. He described a deterioration in his mental health, effects on his relationship with his children, and debts.
  7. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.

Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding a neighbour’s dog

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy adopts the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB. In which, it states that it is conduct which:
    1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy refers to its ASB resolution model. This is a 5-step framework used to tackle ASB. The steps are:
    1. Step 1 – self help and advice (which may include speaking with the neighbour).
    2. Step 2 – enhanced triage (which may include diary sheets and a risk assessment).
    3. Step 3 – investigation and informal resolution (which may include mediation, warnings, or support and counselling).
    4. Step 4 – enforcement and legal action.
    5. Step 5 – customer satisfaction.
  3. The tenancy agreement states that any person living in the property must not engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance. This includes interference with the peace and comfort of others.
  4. It is unclear precisely when the resident first raised his dog concerns. However, the evidence shows the landlord handled multiple daily calls from the resident from 21 January 2022. The landlord’s records show its responses included:
    1. Informing him of its ongoing interaction and visits with his neighbour and the police, regarding the dog and the erected fence.
    2. Its explanation that the police had previously seized the neighbour’s dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the neighbour had successfully applied for an exemption through the courts. Therefore, they had a legal entitlement to keep it.
    3. An explanation why the police could take no further action when the dog was on ‘private land.’ Such as the communal land within the flats which the landlord owned.
    4. That the police had been satisfied with the neighbour’s cooperation and that they had also taken out third-party insurance following the court’s decision.
    5. That it was satisfied for the dog to remain at the property if the neighbour continued to keep the dog on a lead and muzzled when it was outside.
    6. That it would take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour if they failed to remove the fence and comply with how to manage the dog.
  5. This demonstrates the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns and was actively engaging with external partners to monitor matters. The evidence shows it communicated with the resident regularly to answer his questions. This was reasonable in the circumstances and showed how the landlord tried to reassure him that his home was safe to return to.
  6. The landlord’s ASB resolution model states it should consider risk assessments on a case by case basis. It does not specifically refer to the requirement of a risk assessment for animal related matters. However, it states it will complete a risk assessment, regardless of case type, where there is a believed threat or risk. When the landlord considers it does not require a risk assessment, the resolution model states ‘rationale required’ for this decision.
  7. The resident’s complaint on 18 February 2022 referred to his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s dog. He referred to feeling unsafe. As such, he was not living at his property. In contact with us, he also described witnessing the dog in the communal areas without a muzzle or lead. He said this included it hanging from a fire alarm handle by its teeth in the communal hallway. It is therefore reasonable that the resident described feeling alarmed and distressed.
  8. Given the resident’s absence from his home and known vulnerabilities, it is unclear why the landlord has not demonstrated completing a risk assessment to inform its actions. Nor has it demonstrated the rationale for its decision not to complete one. This was not appropriate and not consistent with its ASB resolution model.
  9. Furthermore, it is unclear why we have identified no evidence of the landlord offering either mediation or support, as per step 3 of its ASB resolution model. As the resident had referred to historic events and a relationship breakdown with the neighbour, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have documented why these options were not appropriate. That it did not, does not demonstrate a consistent use of its ASB resolution model.
  10. However, we note the landlord was also managing the resident’s behaviour towards its own staff. It is reasonable to consider that this may have presented challenges when trying to engage with him. On 7 February 2022 the evidence shows the landlord issued a warning letter. Furthermore, there is evidence the landlord discussed matters with the resident’s mother, as he was residing with her. It encouraged him to return home and the importance of maintaining his tenancy. While this is not full mitigation for the lack of a risk assessment, it demonstrates the landlord was aware the resident had support.
  11. That said, the landlord also became aware of the resident referring to suicidal thoughts. On 17 March 2022 he spoke with the landlord and said he was with the police due to a welfare concern. Given this information, it is again unclear why the landlord did not demonstrate completing a risk assessment associated to his change of circumstances. This demonstrated the landlord’s recurring failure to document why it did not consider a risk assessment necessary.
  12. On 18 March 2022 the evidence shows the landlord discussed the resident’s dog concerns with the police. The dog legislation officer reiterated the neighbour’s legal right to keep the animal and its inability to take action on private land. While the resident was unhappy that the police did not originally keep the dog, it was reasonable that the landlord made efforts to investigate and explain matters to him.
  13. The evidence shows the landlord explained the historical court decision to the resident. It also explained its jurisdiction and that of the police when it came to tenancy matters and reports of issues on private land. In this case, any action regarding the dog on the communal land, which it owned, was the landlord’s responsibility. Its efforts to explain the legal differences and responsibilities was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to maintain communication with the resident while it continued its investigations.
  14. We note the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding the installation of the fence. The evidence shows the guidance to install it came following the neighbour’s interaction with the police and courts and not the landlord. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord instructed the neighbour to remove it. However, it was also appropriate for the landlord to pursue this matter formally and to provide the neighbour opportunity to comply with the conditions of their tenancy.
  15. There is further evidence in March 2022 where the landlord discussed the possibility of a community protection notice. It also sought legal guidance regarding sending the neighbour a 28 day notice to remove the fence as it remained. This demonstrated the landlord considered its options and commenced appropriate tenancy enforcement action on the neighbour.
  16. On 5 April 2022 there is further evidence of the landlord’s discussions with legal advisors regarding its duty under the neighbourhood and community standards. It recorded that the dog was no longer at the address. But believed this may only be a temporary arrangement. Therefore, it agreed a 28 day notice to the neighbour for the permanent removal of the animal and fence. The legal team considered these actions proportionate for the landlord to take due to the effects on the peaceful enjoyment of the resident’s property. This demonstrated the landlord recognised the impact on the resident and its efforts to remedy his concerns by the appropriate enforcement means available to it.
  17. That said, while the same meeting reiterated its priority to return the resident to his home, it also recorded he had expressed a desire for a permanent move. Although the records of the meeting demonstrated the landlord had a clear action plan for the dog and fence, it is unclear what action it took to address the resident’s housing comments.
  18. We have seen no evidence of reports from other residents that the neighbour failed to muzzle the dog. Furthermore, apart from the enclosed exercise area incorrectly built by the neighbour, we have no evidence of the dog not being on a lead. It is therefore unclear why the resident choose not to return to the property at this time.
  19. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord and resident relationships, and ensure the peaceful enjoyment of residents residing in their homes.
  20. While the evidence shows the landlord sought legal advice and took steps to address the resident’s concerns, it did not demonstrate completing steps set out in its resolution model. In particular, the absence of risk assessments, offers of mediation or support, or addressing his desire for a permanent move, demonstrated gaps in its ASB case management. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to remind appropriate ASB staff of the importance of these processes.
  21. ASB cases are often challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to it to resolve matters may take time and may not include a resident’s preferred outcome. However, while the resident may have been unhappy with the police and court, the evidence shows the landlord worked towards and secured the outcome requested by the resident. Although, we must still consider the inconsistent application of its ASB resolution model.
  22. We have also considered there to be mitigation with the landlord’s efforts to manage the resident’s case and relationship. While dealing with him, there is evidence the landlord’s staff warned the resident of his own behaviour. The landlord needed to end telephone calls due to abusive language and allegations made about staff. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to issue a written warning. And it demonstrated confirming he was safe as it spoke to his mother who he had chosen to live with. In doing so, it confirmed he had support.
  23. That said, had the landlord demonstrated completion of risk assessments and documented any offers or mediation and or support, it may have better understood his circumstances. By doing this, it may therefore have provided more reassurance to him and maintained a better resident and landlord relationship.
  24. Therefore, based on our findings we find maladministration due to the landlord’s inconsistent use of its ASB model. We may have made a lesser finding but for the recurring failures to complete or document its rationale for not requiring risk assessments. We order it to pay £150 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s failures have adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding a neighbour’s dog.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) regarding a neighbour’s dog.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord reminds ASB staff of the importance of its ASB resolution model steps.