Southern Housing (202302556)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302556

Southern Housing

21 March 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:
1. Reports of anti–social behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement. The property is a semi-detached house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records, although he has told this Service that his partner and daughter have epilepsy.
The resident told the landlord on 23 January 2023 that his neighbour was abusive and allowed their dog to bite people. He also said he was unable to use his driveway as a result and his daughter was too scared to play outside. He told the landlord in April 2023 that his neighbour’s dog had also bitten his partner.
The resident raised a complaint via this Service on 20 April 2023. He reiterated that his neighbour did not control their dog, and his daughter was scared to play outside. He also noted that he was concerned about his neighbour’s behaviour.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 11 June 2023 and said:
1. The resident reported ASB on 23 January 2023. A risk assessment was completed and it was determined the case was of ‘‘medium severity.’’
2. An action plan was sent to the resident on 27 January 2023.
3. The landlord agreed to maintain regular contact with the resident, discuss his concerns with the police, and visit his neighbour. The visit took place on 28 February 2023.
4. The resident reported a number of incidents in April 2023 and provided video footage showing the dog’s aggressive behaviour.
5. It acknowledged that there was a substantial period of time when it failed to contact the resident. This was due to a member of staff being off work.
6. Another member of staff subsequently took over the case. The action plan was updated and the risk rating increased to ‘‘high.’’
7. It would continue to work with partner agencies to ensure his neighbour was living in suitable accommodation that met their needs.
8. It would offer the resident £50 compensation for the failure to contact him about his reports of ASB.
The landlord was asked to escalate the resident’s complaint by this Service on 10 July 2023.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 October 2023 and said:
1. The resident confirmed on 16 June 2023 that there had been no further incidents of ASB.
2. The police confirmed on 28 June 2023 that it did not consider a criminal offence had taken place in relation to the dog.
3. The resident reported the dog had barked aggressively on 24 August 2023.
4. The police confirmed on 1 September 2023 that an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) had previously been put in place, but this had expired on 16 June 2023. The dog had also been subject to a dog behaviour contract, but this had also expired at the time the resident raised concerns.
5. The actions available to the landlord were limited without the support of partner agencies.
6. The resident had previously been advised to contact the police and local authority to ask for an explanation on why no action was being taken.
7. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
8. It offered an additional £50 compensation for its poor complaints handling.

Post complaint events

The resident told this Service on 7 March 2025 that there had been no recent ASB but noted that his neighbour had mental health issues and their behaviour could be ‘‘chaotic’’ at times. He said the landlord focused on meeting his neighbour’s needs, rather than supporting his family. He also noted the resident’s dog had bitten his partner and his daughter was frightened to play outside. The resident wanted compensation from the landlord for failing to address his concerns and to fit a CCTV camera on his driveway.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement says residents must not cause a nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance. Pets can be kept with consent; however, consent can be withdrawn if the animal causes a nuisance or attacks another animal or person. This is repeated in the landlord’s pet policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its approach to preventing and tackling ASB. Examples of ASB include persistent dog barking or uncontrolled animals. The ASB policy says the landlord will:
1. Work with partner agencies and use a range of preventative measures, early intervention tools and legal action to tackle ASB.
2. Complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with residents. Cases that are considered a low or medium risk are contacted within 5 working days.
3. Provide residents with an update on their case every 15 working days (or less frequently if agreed with the resident).
4. Take proportionate action based on the seriousness and frequency of incidents, the risk to those affected, and the availability of evidence.
5. Take informal action, including verbal and written warnings, mediation, and ABC agreements.
6. Support residents who cause ASB to access additional support, including assessing their needs against the impact their behaviour has on others.
7. Support partner agencies to take action where they have the prime responsibility and powers to do so.
Residents are advised to contact the RSPCA or the local authority in the first instance if they have concerns about a neighbour’s pet. If the noise continues, or residents do not feel comfortable speaking to their neighbour, they are told to contact the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation if it fails to provide a service, meet target response times or does not follow its policies and procedures. When calculating a compensation award, the landlord considers the extent and impact of the service failure on the resident. No specific compensation amounts are included in the policy.

ASB

The resident contacted the landlord on 23 January 2023 and said his neighbour’s dog kept escaping and biting people. He also noted that his neighbour frequently knocked on his door, was abusive, and stored rubbish in the garden. He said his daughter was scared to play outside because of the dog. He told the landlord on 25 January 2023 that the police had asked his neighbour to sign an ABC.
On receipt of reports of alleged ASB, this Service expects landlords to gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies, and enforcement action, where appropriate. Landlords should also keep residents reasonably informed of their actions and provide an action plan.
However, landlords must also consider their obligations towards alleged perpetrators and their duties under the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) when sharing information. This can limit the amount of information landlords are able to share with residents, which in turn can cause problems explaining why a particular course of action may not be appropriate.
The landlord initially responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. This included completing a risk assessment on the day he reported ASB. This ensured it understood the resident’s concerns and assessed the impact the situation was having on him. It was determined that the risk level was ‘‘medium,’’ but this was later increased to ‘’high’’ after the landlord acknowledged that no contact had been made with him for some time. While this lack of contact would have been frustrating for the resident, this demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously, was prepared to review its position, and wanted to put things right for him.
The landlord also agreed an action plan with the resident and sent him a copy. Agreeing an action plan helps landlords to manage residents’ expectations and keep them informed about the progress of the case. It also supports landlords to make clear and consistent decisions and ensure its staff are aware of the approach it is taking.
The landlord told the resident to keep a record of incidents that occurred and use the noise app. This was appropriate given that the landlord was not able to take formal action against his neighbour without strong supporting evidence to show the behaviour was serious and prolonged. The landlord agreed to contact partner agencies involved in the case and seek an invite to future multiagency meetings. This was appropriate and in line with its policies. Working with partner agencies ensures landlords share information and agree actions to minimise identified risk. It also said it would visit his neighbour, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The housing records confirm that the landlord took action in accordance with the steps set out in the action plan. It provided the resident with an update on 16 February 2023, who confirmed there had been no recent incidents of ASB.
The landlord also carried out a joint visit to his neighbour’s home with the police on 28 February 2023, during which, it was noted that the dog barked “incessantly” and had to be put in its cage as it could not be touched. Concerns were also raised about the condition of the driveway and front garden, which it said were unkempt.
While it carried out appropriate investigations, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to address the concerns that were identified with the garden or driveway. It is also unclear what advice was given to the neighbour about their dog. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it will take early interventions including informal action to stop ASB escalating. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with an update following the visit. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
The landlord said that the property was not suitable for the resident’s neighbour, and it would discuss moving them to supported housing with partner agencies. While this demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and wanted to resolve the issues for both residents.
The landlord arranged a follow-up visit for 2 March 2023 but was unable to gain access. A further appointment was arranged, but it is unclear from the housing records when, or if, the visit took place. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
No further contact was made with the resident until June 2023. This was despite the resident contacting the landlord on numerous occasions and reporting the dog was aggressive towards his partner. The landlord’s failure to respond was not in accordance with its ASB policy and meant the resident was not clear on what action was being taken by the landlord. It also failed to act on video footage provided by the resident. This was a missed opportunity.
The landlord arranged for a new member of staff to take over the case in June 2023, following the long-term absence of the caseworker. While this demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident, it did not do this for over 2 months. The delay in doing this was unreasonable. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this in its stage 1 complaint response on 11 June 2023 and to offer £50 compensation.
Following the appointment of a new caseworker, the landlord contacted partner agencies involved in the case and provided the resident with an update. It also updated the action plan. This provided the resident with reassurance that it was exploring all of the options available to it to address his concerns. It told the resident it would update him on a weekly basis, although there is no evidence it later did this.
The police confirmed that no further action would be taken given the dog was not a risk and there was no realistic prospect of a conviction being secured. They said this was because no injury had been sustained, and they had received no reports about the dog since March 2023. They also noted dog barking was not considered a criminal offence and the landlord’s proposal to revoke the neighbour’s permission to keep a dog would have a detrimental impact on them.
The landlord challenged some of the conclusions reached by the police and provided the resident with an update. The action plan was also updated in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy. This included noting that it would arrange to visit his neighbour and make a referral to mediation. While the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it was willing to use all of the tools available to it to address the resident’s concerns, there is no evidence the referral was made or contact made with his neighbour. This was a further failure.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to seek advice from its legal team in the absence of partner support, it is unclear from the housing records whether this was provided, or if it acted on any recommendations that were received. There is also no evidence it provided the resident with an update after seeking legal advice. This was a further failure. Effective and proactive communication is vital when dealing with reports of ASB and where a resident feels anxious and distressed in their own home.
There is also no evidence the landlord advised the resident of his right to ask the local authority to carry out an ASB case review (previously known as the community trigger).
In summary, the landlord initially responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its ASB policy. This included completing a risk assessment, agreeing an action plan with the resident and liaising with partner agencies. The landlord did not, however, specifically respond to the resident’s reports that the dog bit his partner in April 2023 and did not put staff cover arrangements in place until June 2023. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged these failings in its stage 1 complaint response and that it offered the resident £50 compensation. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint and wanted to put things right for the resident.
While the landlord liaised with partner agencies from June 2023 onwards, its communication with the resident was poor at times and it did not consider all of the tools available to it. It also failed to advise the resident of his right to ask the local authority to undertake an ASB case review or set out the steps it would take after seeking advice from its legal team.
The situation caused the resident inconvenience and distress. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress in the circumstances given its failure to update the resident at times and take timely action in the absence of partner support. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, for which it is ordered to pay £200 compensation. This replaces the previous offer of £50 compensation made by the landlord and is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 should be issued within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The resident raised a complaint via this Service on 20 April 2023. The landlord was notified about the complaint on 26 April 2023.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2023 and said it would provide a response within 10 working days. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by the deadline date. This was a failure and led to the resident having to chase the matter up on 17 May 2023. The landlord responded on the same day and said it needed more time to investigate the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed it would respond within a further 10 working days.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by the revised deadline date. It told the resident on 30 May 2023 that it needed more time to respond to the resident’s complaint. It said it would do this within 10 working days. No explanation was given for the delay, and it did not mutually agree the new deadline with the resident. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code). The Code says landlords should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. The landlord also failed to advise the resident of his right to contact this Service.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 11 June 2023. This was 34 working days after this Service notified it about the complaint. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding. This was not consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord was asked to escalate the resident’s complaint by this Service on 10 July 2023. It was asked to provide a response by 17 July 2023.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 2 October 2023. This was 60 working days after the escalation request was made by this Service and was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor complaints handling. The offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. It did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in responding to its stage 1 complaint response. This caused the resident inconvenience and led to him having to chase the landlord. While the landlord did offer an apology and £50 compensation relating to the delays to its final complaint response, this cannot be considered reasonable redress as it did not account for the issues identified with the stage 1 response. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation. This replaces the £50 compensation previously offered by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and is made up as follows:
1. £200compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and set out its position regarding his reports of ASB, including updating the action plan if appropriate.