Southern Housing (202317260)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317260

Southern Housing

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began on 23 November 2015 through a mutual exchange. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a disability.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident first reported ASB from 2 separate neighbours (neighbour A and B) on 24 July 2023. She said she felt that her neighbours were racist against her, and she had been a victim of abusive language and harassment from them. She said the police had been involved and she had sent the landlord the crime reference numbers. She said she would like the landlord to visit.
The landlord opened an ASB case the same day. The landlord noted that it already had a counter-case open against the resident from neighbour A regarding alleged racial abuse, so it considered the cases together. The landlord kept the case open for 3 months, during which time took several preventative measures such as referring the resident and neighbour A for mediation. The landlord closed the case in October 2023.
The ASB issues began again in May 2024. Neighbour A made allegations of ASB against the resident on 9 May 2024, and said they had put CCTV cameras up due to ongoing issues. The landlord opened a case and wrote to the resident informing her it had received reports of ASB against her. The resident was unhappy with the letter and raised a complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2024. She said:
1. she had experienced victimisation, racial harassment, and intimidation from neighbour A.
2. she had sent evidence of neighbour A putting their bins in her front garden, but the landlord had done nothing about this.
3. mediation did not resolve the issue.
4. she felt the landlord did not want to help her and the allegations of ASB against her were unfair.
5. she wanted to be left alone and not harassed.
The resident contacted the landlord with further reports of ASB from neighbour A on 13 May 2024, 15 May 2024, and 6 June 2024. She said neighbour A was throwing rubbish into her garden, moving her bins on to her driveway, and had a CCTV camera that faced onto her garden. The landlord wrote to the resident confirming it had opened a new ASB case on 6 June 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2024. It said:
1. it had not upheld the complaint as all previous ASB cases had been fully investigated.
2. it was sorry to hear how the ASB had impacted the resident.
3. it had investigated 4 ASB cases between the resident and neighbour A since 2023, 2 of which were against the resident.
4. it had arranged for a housing officer to contact the resident about her new reports by 7 June 2024, with a view to open a case by 14 June 2024.
5. it was sorry that the resident felt she had not been listened to. It said it had arranged for the relevant staff members’ managers to speak with them about their conduct.
6. it would contact a third party to arrange mediation between the resident and neighbour A by 14 June 2024.
Between June 2024 and October 2024, the landlord took several measures to address the ASB reports from the resident, including:
1. writing to neighbour A asking them to relocate their bins and change their CCTV camera settings.
2. asking both parties to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement.
3. offering further mediation to both parties.
4. visiting neighbour A’s property with a specialist contractor to ensure the CCTV camera was compliant with the landlord’s policy.
5. issuing a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) to neighbour A on the grounds of nuisance.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 during a phone call with the landlord on 1 August 2024. She said her housing officer had failed to attend an appointment on the same day and she was tired of the landlord “not doing its job properly”. She reported ongoing harassment and fly tipping issues from neighbour A and said she just wanted to live in peace.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 28 August 2024. It said:
1. it was sorry for the missed appointment with the resident’s housing officer and confirmed that the housing officer did visit at a different time in the booked day instead.
2. it was offering the resident £20 compensation for the missed appointment.
The resident has been in contact with this Service throughout the duration of the landlord’s internal complaints process. In recent correspondence, the resident said the ASB has caused her significant distress and is still ongoing. She said she would like for the ASB to be resolved so she can live in peace.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the incidents she reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. It is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible for it. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it has followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of all circumstances of the case.
The evidence shown to the Ombudsman details previous ASB cases from 2022 – 2023 which went through a separate complaint as part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, this assessment has focussed on the events from May 2024 onwards that gave rise to the initial complaint on 11 May 2024, which exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Reference to events that occurred prior to May 2024 are made in this report to provide context.
In her correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised new reports of ASB and dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of these reports. These matters did not form part of the original complaint brought to us. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2024. The landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines ASB as:
1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation or residential premises, or
3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the landlord’s approach to investigating reports of ASB. In accordance with its policy, the landlord:
1. considers verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment, flytipping, and vandalism to be examples of ASB.
2. will complete a risk assessment upon opening an ASB case and use this to identify any vulnerabilities the complainant may have as well as the impact of the ASB on their wellbeing.
3. will respond to high-risk cases within 1 working day and respond to medium or low risk cases within 5 working days.
4. will agree an action plan with a complainant and provide updates to the complainant every 15 working days, unless agreed otherwise.
5. may take intervention steps such as mediation, verbal and written warnings, good neighbour agreements, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
6. adopts a victim-centred approach focused on providing support to complainants and taking wellbeing into account.
The landlord’s CCTV policy says that residents are legally entitled to install CCTV as long as they comply with certain conditions, including:
1. to point cameras away from neighbouring properties wherever possible and consider how intrusive the camera is for other residents where not possible.
2. to stop recording an individual if they object to being recorded if possible.
3. to comply wherever possible with requests for footage from neighbours, agencies, or other members of the public.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord and the Ombudsman that the landlord discriminated against her and showed bias in favour of other residents. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to make legally binding findings on discrimination allegations, we will consider the overall handling of the resident’s complaint and whether the landlord responded to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord opened a new ASB case on 9 May 2024 after receiving a report from neighbour A that the resident had verbally abused her. The landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it had received new reports of ASB against her on the same day. The resident phoned the landlord on 13 May 2024 to discuss the letter. The landlord agreed to assign the case to the staff member who had dealt with the resident’s previous ASB case for continuity. The landlord also emailed the mediator from the previous case to obtain an update. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. It showed that the landlord understood the complexities of the case.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 May 2024. She said she was unhappy with the allegations against her and felt the landlord had not treated her as a victim. The landlord responded to the complaint on 5 June 2024. It said it would open a new ASB case in response to her reports and provided an action plan with clear timescales, which was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy. It also said it would ask the managers of the staff members involved with the ASB cases to speak with them about their conduct. This was a reasonable measure in the circumstances.
The landlord opened a new ASB case against neighbour A on 6 June 2024, which was in line with the timescales set out in the action plan it provided in its stage 1 response. However, other than a letter confirming the case had been opened, the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the case or take any action for 1 month. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. This was not appropriate and caused time and effort the resident who contacted both the landlord and this Service on 2 July 2024 and 3 July 2024 to request an update on her case.
The landlord has not provided any risk assessments that were completed at the start of the case. Given the nature of the reports made by the resident, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have completed regular risk assessments in line with its ASB policy. In completing risk assessments and focussing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of the ASB.
However, the evidence shows that the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident following her update requests and took several appropriate preventative measures in line with its ASB policy throughout July 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord:
1. asked neighbour A to remove their bins from the resident’s driveway and change their CCTV camera from swivel to fixed by 26 July 2024, with a view to serve a tort notice on the camera if neighbour A did not comply.
2. created a Good Neighbour Agreement for both parties.
3. arranged mediation with a third party between the resident and neighbour A.
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions throughout August 2024 to report dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her ASB case. In an email dated 2 August 2024, the resident said that she felt depressed over the case. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns over her wellbeing or used a risk assessment to identify the impact of the ASB on the resident’s wellbeing as set out in its ASB policy. This was not appropriate.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord complied with its ASB policy and contacted the resident at least every 15 days between August 2024 and the case’s closure in November 2024. This was not appropriate and caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident who contacted both the landlord and this Service to express dissatisfaction on multiple occasions throughout this period.
On 9 September 2024, the landlord visited neighbour A with a specialist contractor to check neighbour A’s CCTV camera. The landlord satisfied itself during the visit that the camera was compliant with its CCTV policy and received sign off from the contractor to confirm this. While it is recognised that neighbour A’s CCTV camera was causing distress to the resident, the landlord’s policy does not enforce removal of cameras if they are compliant with its policy. The landlord acted reasonably and in line with its CCTV policy.
The records show that the landlord continued to investigate the ASB reports throughout September 2024 and arranged for a Notice Seeking Possession (NSP) to be issued to neighbour A by 1 November 2024, following a police disclosure which evidenced nuisance. This was a reasonable action in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
Overall, the landlord took several actions in line with its ASB policy. However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. This is because:
1. the landlord failed to contact the resident within the timescales published in its ASB policy, which caused time and effort to the resident who contacted both the landlord and this Service to request an update.
2. there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed any risk assessments at the start of the case or at any point during the case, which was not in line with its ASB policy.
3. the landlord’s failure to appropriately consider the impact of the ASB on the resident’s wellbeing, as set out in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay discretionary compensation for circumstances where it has failed to meet its target response times or its service standards. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident for the missed visit she reported in its stage 2 response. The compensation offered for the missed appointment was in line with our remedies guidance.
However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the above failures in its complaint responses or offer any financial remedy to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused. This was not in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
To acknowledge the distress, time and effort caused to the resident by the above failures, an apology and compensation of £150 has been ordered. The total compensation payable is therefore £170, in replacement of the £20 offered by the landlord at stage 2. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The associated complaint

In accordance with the Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the days of the acknowledgment at stage 1.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
4. progress a complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1.
The landlord’s policy is compliant with the provisions of the Code.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 1 June 2024, which was 9 working days after it had sent an initial complaint acknowledgement to the resident. This was in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 2 July 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said that she was not happy with the service it provided. She said she felt that her housing officers had not done their job properly and allowed the ASB from neighbour A to continue against her. There is no evidence that the landlord recognised this contact as a complaint or escalated her original complaint to stage 2 of its internal complaints process. Given that the resident had expressed further dissatisfaction with the substantive issue addressed at stage 1, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate her complaint at this point.
The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident on 1 August 2024, however it is unclear from the evidence provided why it escalated the complaint or which contact from the resident it treated as an escalation request. This is a record keeping failure.
In both its stage 2 acknowledgement letter and its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the complaint was about both a missed appointment and outstanding ASB issues. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord only addressed the issue of the missed appointment. It also referenced an action plan, but there was no action plan included in the response. The landlord failed to provide a meaningful response to the substantive issue at stage 2, which caused inconvenience, time and effort to the resident who had to continue to contact the landlord about the same ASB issues. The landlord’s response was therefore unreasonable.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This is due to:
1. the landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s correspondence on 2 July 2024 as an escalation of her stage 1 complaint, which caused time and effort to the resident who contacted this Service for help.
2. the landlord’s failure to meaningfully address the substantive issue in its stage 2 response in line with dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance and the lack of clarity around the compensation already paid by the landlord, a fair amount of compensation for the above failures would be £60.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in the report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £230 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £20 the landlord has already offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord may deduct this from the total compensation amount if it has already been paid.
  2. £150 for the distress, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in its ASB handling.
  3. £60 for inconvenience, time and effort caused to the resident by the failures in its complaint handling.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within 28 days of this determination.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident about any ongoing ASB concerns in line with its ASB policy.