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

Southwark Council (202429480)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202429480

Southwark Council

23 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
    2. Complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a local authority. She lives in a 3-bedroom flat within a block.
  2. The resident’s daughter represents her in this case and submitted the correspondence and complaint to the landlord. For clarity, both will be referred to collectively as ‘the resident’ throughout the report.
  3. On 27 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that police officers had attended the block on 25 March 2023 after her neighbour claimed to have been burgled, which she said was untrue. She later informed the landlord that the police returned on 12 April 2023, but the neighbour did not allow them access to her property. The resident expressed concerns that the neighbour had repeatedly refused a mental health assessment and asked the landlord to escalate the issue due to the waste of police time. Additionally, she mentioned that her neighbour was being considered for rehousing by the housing panel and asked for an update.
  4. On 18 April 2023, the resident requested an update from the landlord regarding her emails. She reported that her neighbour displayed a poster claiming she and other neighbours tried to enter her flat, mentioning ‘lock bumping.’ The resident said that these were serious and false allegations. The landlord responded the same day, explaining that it could not force a mental health assessment on the neighbour and was unaware of any rehousing referral.
  5. On 19 April 2023, the resident raised a historical concern that the police had submitted a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) referral in October 2021 about her neighbour. Still, she had never been informed of the outcome.
  6. On 29 August 2023, she contacted the landlord again to request an update on the MARAC outcome and the potential rehousing of the neighbour. She described the neighbour’s behaviour as erratic, noting frequent loud noises during the night, which she said sounded like ‘throwing furniture’.
  7. On 25 October 2023, the resident reported that the neighbour had defaced new posters and accused her of entering the neighbour’s home, terrorising and racially harassing her. In response, the landlord said that it could not discuss aspects of the neighbour’s case and advised the resident to report the harassment to the police. The landlord also recommended that the resident refrain from engaging with the neighbour and said that it would issue a cease-and-desist letter to the neighbour.
  8. On 20 January 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the neighbours’ behaviour. On 26 February 2024, she sent a formal complaint expressing her dissatisfaction with how the landlord handled the situation. She highlighted the landlord’s failure to respond to 9 follow-up emails about the MARAC referral, the lack of clarity about the cease-and-desist letter, and a general absence of effective intervention.
  9. On 11 March 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. The response confirmed that MARAC meetings had taken place and that the recommendations had been implemented; however, the landlord was unable to disclose specific details due to confidentiality. The landlord clarified that it had not issued a cease-and-desist letter at the time. Furthermore, it said that it had investigated the resident’s concerns and offered reassurance that it took her concerns seriously.
  10. On 19 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint, saying that the landlord had failed to address key concerns and had issued a generic response to her complaint. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 12 July 2024. The landlord apologised for the delays caused by a backlog of complaints and acknowledged the failure to send the cease-and-desist letter. The landlord confirmed that the issue with defaced posters had been resolved, that monthly ASB case meetings were being held and that senior staff were reviewing the case. Additionally, the landlord offered £225 in compensation: £150 for poor communication, £50 for the time and trouble, and £25 for the inadequate stage 1 response.
  11. In February 2025, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She asked that we investigate her complaint, asking that the landlord rehouse her neighbour or have her sectioned and take disciplinary actions against the staff members involved in the case for their failures. She asked for an increase in compensation for the impact the reports had on her household. In June 2025, the resident told us that the ASB was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. As part of the resolution to her complaint, the resident has asked that the landlord rehouse her neighbour, arrange for a mental health evaluation, and discipline the staff involved in the ASB case. We acknowledged her concerns, but we cannot order these requests due to legal limitations. Our authority does not extend to compelling a landlord to act against another resident, such as rehousing them or conducting a mental health assessment. Legal frameworks dictate that such matters require consent, appropriate evidence, or legal mandates that we cannot provide. Disciplinary actions about internal staffing matters are also outside our jurisdiction. Therefore, in this case, our role is to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of ASB by following its policies and procedures to ensure fairness in all circumstances.
  2. The resident has said that the issues with her neighbour have been ongoing for several years. Our investigation can be time-limited to when a complaint is brought to the landlord’s attention. This assessment, therefore, focuses on events from March 2023 onwards. This is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from her neighbour, which led to her complaint in February 2024.

Handing of the ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines its commitment to respond to ASB reports promptly and proportionately, taking appropriate action based on the nature and severity of the reported behaviour. It confirms that the landlord will work in partnership with agencies such as the police and will consider using a range of legal and non-legal tools to address issues. It also outlines that it must keep complainants updated and manage cases in a way that protects the confidentiality and rights of all parties involved.
  2. From March 2023 onwards, the resident raised concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour, including erratic activity, late-night noise, defamatory posters, and police attendance and referenced a past MARAC referral. It was not until October 2023 that the landlord confirmed it was treating the posters as harassment, categorised as ASB under its policy. Before this, there is no evidence the landlord formally opened an ASB case or communicated how the reports were being logged or managed. The policy requires logging, risk assessment, and communication of action plans. If reports were considered below the ASB threshold, the landlord should have clearly explained this. Its failure to do so was not in line with its policy, leaving the resident feeling uncertain and unsupported.
  3. Following reports from the resident that the neighbour had avoided a mental health assessment, the landlord confirmed that it could not compel the neighbour to undergo a mental health assessment. While this was factually correct, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain what alternative ASB case management or preventative measures it could consider.
  4. We recognise the complexities of managing ASB complaints involving individuals with potential mental health issues. It requires a careful balance between the rights and needs of all parties and collaboration with relevant agencies. However, this complexity does not absolve the landlord from conducting prompt risk assessments, keeping clear communication with the resident, and taking early interventions. In this case, the landlord’s failure to explore or explain alternative actions under its ASB policy was a missed opportunity to manage the situation and expectations.
  5. The evidence shows that in April 2023 and again in August 2023, the resident requested an update about an earlier MARAC referral from 2021, which related to her neighbour. There is no evidence that the referral was related directly to the resident. While the landlord would not be expected to disclose personal details, it should have provided a clear response to acknowledge the concerns and explained what general steps it was taking to ensure safety and effective case management. It’s stage 1 response in March 2024 gave limited information which left the resident uncertain and pursuing further answers.
  6. The ASB policy provides for early interventions such as warning letters or Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) where appropriate. In this case, there is no evidence the landlord issued a formal warning letter to the neighbour in response to the posters or other reported behaviour. Additionally, the resident said that the neighbour had previously signed an ABC and asked that the landlord investigate whether the neighbour’s actions breached its terms. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request or reviewed the ABC as part of its case management. These were further missed opportunities to manage behaviour using the tools available in its policy.
  7. In September 2023, the landlord informed the resident during a home visit that a risk assessment could not be carried out because the incidents she referred to were not recent enough. However, by that point, the resident had made reports over several months, including noise nuisance, police attendance and the neighbour displaying accusatory posters. The landlord’s ASB policy does not specify a time limit on assessing risk, but states that all reports should be reviewed to determine the appropriate level of risk and response. Its refusal to carry out a risk assessment on the basis that incidents were not ‘recent enough’ was not in line with the policy. Given the pattern of reports over several months, including police involvement and public accusations, the landlord should have recognised the cumulative nature of the risk and undertaken a formal assessment. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to consider the resident’s vulnerability and ensure appropriate action was taken.
  8. Following the receipt of more reports about distressing and defamatory posters in October 2023, the landlord recommended that the resident avoid interaction with the neighbour. The landlord said it would issue a cease-and-desist letter to the neighbour. The landlord’s assurance that it would issue a cease-and-desist letter, followed by its later confirmation that it had not done so in its stage 2 response, was a failure in communication and follow-through. This undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s responses and contributed to her distress, particularly as the posters were a focal point of her concerns.
  9. Although the landlord said that it held regular ASB meetings to monitor the situation, it did not provide the resident with any action plan or clear information about what she could expect in terms of updates or next steps. While it committed to creating an action plan in its stage 2 response in March 2024, this was several months after the resident’s reports and 5 months after the landlord confirmed it was treating the posters as harassment. This failure to set expectations left the resident uncertain and required her to repeatedly chase updates, contrary to the landlord’s policy of providing clear, proactive communication.
  10. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged some failures in communication and confirmed that certain actions had been taken, such as resolving the posters and holding ASB meetings. However, it did not demonstrate how these actions addressed the resident’s concerns. Its response focused on general reassurance rather than specific, outcome-focused steps.
  11. The landlord maintained a consistent position that it could not share certain information due to confidentiality. However, it did not adequately explain what aspects of the case this applied to or what information could still be shared. This left the resident unclear about whether any action was being taken at all. The landlord had a duty to manage confidentiality sensitively while also ensuring the resident felt heard, informed, and reassured. Its failure to strike this balance contributed to the resident’s frustration and lack of trust in its handling of the case.
  12. Overall, the landlord did not fully adhere to its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s concerns. It did not carry out a risk assessment when it should have, and did not provide a clear action plan promptly. Communication was inconsistent, particularly about the MARAC referral and the cease-and-desist letter. Although the landlord later acknowledged some service failures and offered £200 compensation, this came only after the resident had experienced prolonged distress due to avoidable delay and uncertainty. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  13. We have considered the compensation offered and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This brings the total compensation to £450 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance on cases involving maladministration, delay, and significant service failure.

Complaint handling

  1. On 26 February 2024, the resident submitted a complaint. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 March 2024, which was 10 working days after the resident submitted the complaint. This response aligned with its complaints policy timescale.
  2. The stage 1 response lacked detail and did not address the core concerns raised by the resident. Although the response concluded by saying that it had adequately captured and explained the resident’s concerns, it did not, in fact provide sufficient or consistent reasoning. As a result, the resident remained unclear about how the landlord had investigated and responded to her concerns and what actions it had taken. This lack of clarity and explanation contradicted the Complaints Policy, which requires complaint responses to be proportionate, focused, and outcome driven.
  3. On 19 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord did not issue the stage 2 response until 12 July 2024, which significantly exceeded the 20-working day target. Evidence shows that the landlord requested extensions and cited a high volume of complaints as the reason for the delays.
  4. The landlord apologised for the delays and offered £25 for the inadequate stage 1 response, but it did not address the wider concerns about complaint handling. The landlord did not show learning from the complaint, which resulted in ongoing dissatisfaction and confusion about its approach and diminished its accountability in resolving the complaint.
  5. We have considered the £25 compensation provided, which we consider disproportionate to the failures we have found. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 in compensation, bringing the total to £125 for handling the complaint. This amount acknowledges the unnecessary time and effort the resident had to invest in dealing with the landlord, as well as the absence of evidence showing any learning from the failures in its complaint handling. This compensation amount aligns with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB
    2. Complaint

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. apologised to the resident for the failures we have found
    2. paid the resident £575, made up of:
      1. £200 as offered at stage 2 for the failures found in its handling of the ASB reports if not already paid
      2. £250 for the failures we have found in its handling of the ASB reports and the distress and inconvenience this caused
      3. £25 as offered at stage 2 for the failures found in its complaint handling
      4. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the failures we have found in the landlord’s complaint handling
    3. this money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any money owed
    4. contacted the resident to confirm the current situation with the ASB outlined in an action plan steps it will take. The action plan must also be shared with the resident.
    5. reviewed the failures in its handling of the ASB, and set out what service improvements or training have been or will be implemented to prevent similar failures in the future
    6. confirmed what changes or service improvements it has made or plans to make to improve the quality and timeliness of future complaint response