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

Southern Housing (202431494)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431494

Southern Housing

28 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 response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property since October 1989. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident reported noise and other ASB from her neighbour on 14 February 2024. She told the landlord she had filled in diary sheets before but now there was noise every night.
  3. On 11 March 2024 the resident told the landlord there was drug dealing and she was frightened to report it to the police. The landlord responded on 14 March 2024 and asked her to send details of incidents over the next 2 weeks.
  4. The resident complained on 29 May 2024 that the landlord was not protecting her and her granddaughter. She said the neighbour had violated the tenancy agreement.
  5. On 30 May 2024 the landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets over the next 2 weeks or report incidents through the noise app. It said it would then decide on what to do. On 3 July 2024, the landlord told the resident it had opened an ASB case.
  6. In its complaint response on 10 July 2024 the landlord said after the report in March 2024 it should have opened an ASB case, but did not do so. It also said it did not tell the resident it could open a case and keep her anonymous. It apologised for not following its ASB policy. It offered £380 compensation.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2024. She said it was taking too long to resolve the ASB, and it was affecting her health and work.
  8. In its final response on 13 November 2024 the landlord said it could not consider the effect on health as part of the complaints process. It gave information on how to make an insurance claim. It said it was now in regular contact with the resident, and it had arranged a joint visit with the police. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £50 compensation. It offered a further £100 for the delay in investigating the ASB.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB. She said the offer of compensation did not reflect the stress she had been through.

Assessment and findings

The scope if the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has seen the resident made reports of noise in 2022. These reports are outside the scope of this investigation because the Ombudsman may not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising and there is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint within 12 months.
  2. In her complaint, the resident said the ASB had affected her health. The Ombudsman cannot consider this part of the complaint because the Scheme says that we will not investigate complaints which concern matters where we consider it more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions had a detrimental effect on health. Because of this, we are unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the complaint. However, we can assess whether the landlord behaved reasonably when dealing with the resident’s concerns.

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases involving allegations can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. The Ombudsman can decide whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably when responding to these allegations. For example, when the landlord received a report, did it respond promptly, did it offer support to the resident, and did it work with other agencies.
  2. The landlord has a responsibility to deal with reports of ASB in line with legislation and its policy. In line with the Crime and Policing Act 2014, the landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as actions that cause, or are likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy says when it receives a report of ASB it will take details and consider the severity of the incident. If it decides to deal with a noise report through its ASB procedure, it will ask the resident to keep diary sheets or use the noise app. It says if the ASB is a crime, it expects the resident to report it to the police. It says it will record anonymous reports and act on these where it finds evidence of ASB.
  4. The landlord’s policy says if it decides to deal with a report, it will complete a risk assessment. If this produces a high score, it will respond to the resident within 1 working day. For medium or low scores, it will respond within 5 working days. It says it will tell the resident who is dealing with their case and agree an action plan. It says it will update the resident every 15 working days. It will take “appropriate action” to investigate reports, which could include interviewing the other party, requesting information from the police, and listening to recordings.
  5. The policy says after the landlord has investigated a report it will decide what action to take. This will be proportionate to the seriousness of the ASB and the risk it poses. It says where there is evidence of serious ASB or when informal approaches have been unsuccessful, it may take legal action.
  6. Records provided by the landlord show the resident reported noise from her neighbour on 14 February 2024. She said there was noise every night and throughout the day, with lots of people coming and going and drinking alcohol. She said the situation was affecting her health and she had asked the neighbour not to make so much noise. She said the landlord had sent her diary sheets but there was noise every night. She wanted further advice from the landlord. It is unclear from the records provided whether the landlord responded to this request.
  7. On 11 March 2024, the resident called the landlord and said she thought the neighbour was dealing drugs. She said she was too frightened to report it to the police as the neighbour would know it was her. The landlord asked her to continue filling out diary sheets. The resident returned diary sheets on 12 March 2024. The landlord sent her more diary sheets on 14 March 2024 and asked her to record any incidents over the next 2 weeks.
  8. On 19 March 2024 the landlord raised a task to review the diary sheets and open an ASB case, if it found the noise was ASB. On 27 March 2024, the landlord’s records show it found the noise was ASB. This included shouting, slamming doors, and people coming and going through the night. On 3 April 2024, the landlord gave the resident access to the noise app and completed a risk assessment with the resident.
  9. Although it is unclear how the landlord responded after the resident asked for advice on 14 February 2024, it appears the landlord was in contact with the resident after this date. This is because the landlord asked her to send in diary sheets when she contacted it on 11 March 2024. The resident sent these on 12 March 2024, and the landlord raised a task to review them 5 working days later. The landlord completed a review on 27 March 2024 and 4 working days later did a risk assessment. It also gave the resident access to the noise app, which was reasonable, as the landlord needed further evidence of the noise.
  10. The landlord could have completed a risk assessment a few days earlier, however, the 3-week period between the call on 11 March 2024 and the risk assessment on 3 April 2024 was reasonable. This is because there was no sign of a serious risk to the resident at this time. However, the resident had raised concerns about drug dealing, which was a police matter, but it is not clear whether the landlord gave the resident advice on contacting the police.
  11. On 12 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she was scared of the neighbour. She said she wanted to be anonymous and did not want the landlord to open an ASB case because of repercussions.
  12. The resident made noise recordings during April 2024, and on 24 April 2024 the landlord reviewed these. It also contacted the resident the same day asking her to contact it to discuss her reports. On 9 May 2024, the landlord called the resident to discuss her noise recordings and an action plan.
  13. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the action plan and cannot comment on whether it was reasonable. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord had regular contact with the resident at the time.
  14. The resident complained on 29 May 2024 that the landlord was not taking responsibility for the ASB. She said the neighbour was violating his tenancy agreement because of the noise.
  15. On 30 May 2024 the landlord responded and said it was sorry to hear about the noise. It said it had a process for dealing with noise reports and asked the resident to complete diary sheets over the next 2 weeks. It said it would then decide whether the reports were ASB. On 13 June 2024, the landlord said following the report on 29 May 2024, the 2-week period had ended. It said it had been unable to complete a review as it had not received any evidence from the resident. It said it would close the report.
  16. The Ombudsman has found this communication was a failure by the landlord. This is because it initially dealt with the resident’s complaint as a new report of noise nuisance and asked her to send in diary sheets. The landlord did not connect the resident’s communication on 29 May 2024 with the reports it had already received. The communication it sent on 13 June 2024 said it had closed the case. This would have caused frustration and upset for the resident, who was still reporting noise and who had complained about how the landlord had dealt with her reports.
  17. The landlord’s records show that on 25 June 2024 the resident called and said she had sent in evidence, but the landlord was not protecting her. On 28 June 2024, the landlord contacted the police about the resident’s reports of ASB and asked for details of reports the police had received. Following further reports of ASB from the resident, the landlord wrote to her on 3 July 2024 and said it had opened an ASB case. It said a case officer would give fortnightly updates, visit the neighbour, review evidence, contact the police, and consider intervention and tenancy enforcement action.
  18. The actions the landlord said it would do on 3 July 2024 were reasonable, however, this was 3 months after the landlord decided the noise was ASB in April 2024. The landlord should have opened an ASB case in April 2024. Because it did not do so, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not follow its ASB policy. This was a failure that caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
  19. In its complaint response on 10 July 2024, the landlord accepted it did not follow its ASB policy in April 2024. It said it should have opened an ASB case after it completed the risk matrix on 3 April 2024. It also said it should have told the resident it could open a case when she said she wanted to be anonymous. It apologised for these failures and offered £350 compensation for inconvenience, time, and trouble, £15 for the failure to follow its policy, and £15 for giving incorrect information. It also said a manager met with her on 3 July 2024 and discussed the ASB process, completed a new risk matrix, and opened an ASB case.
  20. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response for the 3-month delay in opening the ASB case. Although this was a significant delay, there is evidence the landlord regularly contacted the resident during this time. It also contacted the police. However, there were communication errors, and the landlord did not open an ASB case when it should have done. This meant it did not set out an action plan and take other actions. In these circumstances, a complaint response that gave an apology, offered compensation of £380, and set out what it would do next was reasonable.
  21. In the complaint response the landlord also said it would let the neighbour know it had received complaints, and it had heard noise when visiting. It said it needed to investigate thoroughly and let the neighbour know that it could take tenancy enforcement action. It was reasonable for the landlord to contact the neighbour to give him an opportunity to change his behaviour. The landlord would also need to have evidence that it had engaged with the neighbour before it could take any further action.
  22. Records provided by the landlord show it wrote to the neighbour on 5 August 2024 about reports of ASB. It said it took the reports seriously and would call the neighbour on 8 August 2024 to discuss the allegations. It is unclear why there was a month gap between the complaint response and contact with the neighbour. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should have done this sooner and this was an unreasonable delay.
  23. The landlord was unable to contact the neighbour on 8 August 2024. It wrote to him the same day and asked him to call by 19 August 2024. It said it wanted to discuss matters that could put his tenancy at risk. It also sent a survey about ASB incidents to other neighbours on 8 August 2024. It spoke with the resident on the same day and on 15 August 2024. On 23 August 2024, the resident sent in diary sheets from the past 2 weeks and asked the landlord to let her know what would happen next.
  24. In her complaint escalation on 21 August 2024 the resident said matters were taking too long. She said the ASB was affecting her mental health, and she could not sleep. She also said it was affecting her work. She wanted the landlord to take the matter more seriously and move things on quicker.
  25. On 5 September 2024 the landlord’s records say it spoke with the resident who told it the situation was “getting out of hand” and preventing her from sleeping. The resident said she had not contacted the police as it was not safe to do so. She said she wanted the neighbour moved out and said there should be enough evidence as other neighbours had been reporting ASB. The landlord told her the next action was a joint visit with the police.
  26. The landlord visited the neighbour on 18 September 2024 but was unable to discuss the reports with him because other people were present. Records show the landlord was also in contact with the local authority and police about the concerns at this time. The resident continued to report incidents between September and November 2024. There is evidence the landlord was in contact with the resident and local authority during October 2024. On 11 November 2024, the landlord arranged a joint visit with the police for 20 November 2024. It asked the local authority to be involved.
  27. In its final response on 13 November 2024 the landlord said it could not pay compensation for any effects on health through its complaint process. It gave information on how to make a personal injury claim. It said since the stage 1 response, it had been in regular contact with the resident. It said it had arranged a joint visit with the police to the property but was unable to share all the information on the actions due to GDPR. It said it was committed to resolving the concerns. It offered £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the delay in investigating the ASB.
  28. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord’s final response was reasonable. This is because it explained why it could not consider personal injury claims through the complaints process and gave information on making an insurance claim. There is evidence of regular contact with the resident after the complaint response and the landlord also contacted the police and local authority for support. It also tried to contact the neighbour and gather evidence from other neighbours, which would help support any enforcement action. The Ombudsman accepts there were limits on what information the landlord could share with the resident.
  29. However, there were further delays in the way the landlord dealt with the case after the complaint response. It took the landlord a month to contact the neighbour about the noise reports. It is also unclear why the landlord did not contact the local authority until September 2024 or arrange a joint visit with the police until November 2024. Because the landlord did not contact the neighbour sooner, there was a further delay in the investigation, which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident. Because of this it was reasonable for the landlord to offer £100 compensation.
  30. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord’s ASB policy says it will include support within its action plan based on the resident’s situation. It says this may include signposting a resident to an external support agency, such as Victim Support. The resident had told the landlord she was scared of the neighbour and did not want to contact the police because of repercussions. The landlord accepted that it did not tell her she could report ASB anonymously.
  31. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord considered referring the resident to a support agency. The resident told the Ombudsman in May 2025 that the landlord offered no support. The Ombudsman has found the lack of an offer of support to the resident who had concerns for her safety was an additional service failure by the landlord. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation for the failure to follow its ASB policy.
  32. The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord is continuing to deal with reports of ASB. The resident told the Ombudsman in May 2025 that she cannot sleep and the ASB was affecting her work. Because of this, the landlord must contact the resident to discuss whether a referral to a support agency would be helpful.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints in 10 working days. When a resident escalates a complaint, it will send a final response in 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. The resident complained about the way the landlord was dealing with her reports of ASB on 29 May 2024. The landlord initially dealt with this as another report of ASB and then acknowledged the complaint on 17 June 2024.
  3. On 1 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it aimed to send a response by 1 July 2024 but needed more time to gather information. It said it would respond by 15 July 2024. The landlord sent its complaint response on 10 July 2024, which was 31 working days after the resident complained. This was a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints policy, which it did not acknowledge in its complaint response.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 August 2024. Although the landlord continued to deal with reports of ASB, it did not acknowledge the escalation until 16 October 2024, after the resident chased a response.
  5. On 30 October 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed to extend the response date until 13 November 2024 because it was waiting for information. It sent its final response on 13 November 2024. This was 61 working days after the resident escalated her complaint.
  6. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and offered £50 compensation for not following its policy. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was insufficient in the circumstances. This is because there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original complaint. The landlord did not initially deal with it as a complaint. It then took 31 days to respond. When the resident escalated her complaint she had to chase a response. It took the landlord 61 days to provide a final response. In mitigation the landlord was in regular contact with the resident about her ASB reports and contacted her to let her know it needed longer to respond. It also apologised for the delay at stage 2 and offered £50 compensation for this. However, there was no acknowledgment of the failure to deal with the original complaint in line with its policy. Because of this, the landlord must pay the resident a further £50 compensation.

 

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord with its:
    1. Response to reports of ASB.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation for the failures found in this report. It must pay this within 4 weeks of the date of the report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears. This is made up of:
    1. £100 for the failure to follow its ASB policy.
    2. £50 for the failure to follow its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord must contact the resident to discuss whether a referral to a support agency would be helpful.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.