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

Southern Housing (202211259)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211259

Southern Housing

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

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 21 June 2004. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette in a converted house. The landlord’s records show that the resident has no vulnerabilities.
  2. On 24 June 2021 the landlord opened an ASB case because the resident had told it that her neighbour was causing noise nuisance. The landlord asked her to complete diary sheets for 2 weeks or report noise via the noise app. It told the resident that once she returned the evidence it would let her know if the noise was antisocial and if she did not return any evidence, it would assume there was no longer an issue.
  3. On 9 October 2021 the landlord opened another case because the resident had emailed it to say that the same neighbour was leaving belongings in the communal area. The landlord called the resident on 18 November 2021. The resident confirmed that the neighbour:
    1. Was causing noise nuisance.
    2. Had unruly visitors.
    3. Had children who were slamming the front doors and running up and down the communal stairs.
    4. Was fly tipping at the side of the building, including a dismantled cot.
    5. Was leaving a push chair in the hallway and throwing paper planes from the windows.

She said that the noise had been ongoing for 7 years and it sounded as if there were no floor covering in the neighbour’s property.

  1. On 22 April 2022 the resident called the landlord. She said that the neighbour was leaving items in the communal areas again. She said that the neighbour moved the items when she received tort notices from the landlord and then put them back.
  2. The resident contacted this Service and on 28 September 2022 we advised the landlord that she wished to complain about its handling of her reports of ASB. We asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 12 October 2022.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 January 2023. The landlord noted that she was very upset about the ongoing ASB from the neighbour. She said the household was very noisy and showed no consideration for others when banging doors and running up and down communal stairs. She said the neighbour also constantly left items in the communal area. The landlord advised the resident to complete diary sheets and the noise app for 2 weeks to see if there was enough evidence to open a case.
  4. A housing officer visited the neighbour on 18 January 2023 and noted that there were no belongings in the communal area at that time. It also noted that it had discussed the noise complaint with the neighbour and that the issues seemed to be from general living noise, the property was in good condition and carpeted.
  5. On 8 February 2023 and 6 April 2023, the landlord served tort notices on all residents in the block stating that a pushchair and scooter had been found in the communal area and these would be disposed of if not removed by 22 February 2023.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident to offer mediation on 31 March 2023 and 4 April 2023. It noted that it received no reply.
  7. The resident contacted this Service to tell us that she had still not received a stage 1 complaint response. We wrote to the landlord on 28 June 2023 and asked it to provide this by 5 July 2023.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 June 2023 and provided a response on 14 July 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised that it had not responded to her complaint in August 2022 and said that it had recruited a new staff member to respond to an increase in enquiries.
    2. It had served 2 tort notices regarding the items left in the hallway. However, it was hard to manage resident’s leaving items in the hallways as they could remove and replace them.
    3. It had offered mediation to the resident, which the neighbour had agreed to, to try to resolve the noise problems. However, it could not find any evidence that she had accepted the offer and the ASB case had been closed. It felt this was the best solution to resolve the issue and asked the resident to re-consider this and advise it of her decision.
    4. It had compiled an action plan and it would:
      1. Clearance of communal gardens by 28 July 2023.
      2. Inspect communal hallway by 28 July 2023.
      3. Sent a letter to all resident’s reminding them not to leave personal items in the communal hallway by 28 July 2023.
      4. Dependent on outcome of inspection, issue another tort notice to all residents.
      5. Inspect the front door to assess whether a soft closure could be installed by 18 August 2023.
    5. It offered discretionary compensation of £65 comprising:
      1. £50 for poor complaint handling.
      2. £15 for failure to follow its processes.
  9. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 20 August 2023. She said that:
    1. The landlord had not completed any of the actions promised in the stage 1 complaint response.
    2. Mediation in the past had not been successful.
    3. Sound proofing works agreed previously had not been completed.
  10. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation request on 22 August 2023 and agreed an extension in providing a response with the resident on 21 September 2023. It responded on 28 September 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised that it had not completed actions promised in the stage 1 complaint response.
    2. It understood from the information the resident had provided that mediation was not suitable for her.
    3. It had inspected the property on 23 August 2023 and found no items in the communal area and the gardens were clear of rubbish. It attached photographs to confirm this.
    4. It had sent a letter to all residents on 20 September 2023 to remind them that no items should be stored in the communal hallway. It would continue to inspect regularly and remove items that were an immediate risk to health and safety and tort items that were not. If they knew who the items belonged to they would contact them directly. It asked the resident to report any items that appeared between inspections.
    5. A surveyor would inspect the front door on 8 October 2023 to assess the slow close mechanism to see if anything could be done to stop the door slamming.
    6. It had asked for a review of the ASB case to be conducted which should be completed by 13 October 2023. It would share the outcome of the review with the resident and clarify its position on future action.
    7. Further to the resident sharing an email she had received in 2016 from the landlord regarding sound proofing works. It would complete a survey for this work by 30 October 2023.
    8. It increased its offer of compensation to £480 comprising:
      1. £65 as offered at stage 1.
      2. £50 for continued unsatisfactory handling of the complaint.
      3. £15 for failure to follow process since stage 1 response.
      4. £350 for the inconvenience caused.
  11. In June 2025 the resident told us that all the issues she complained about are still occurring and that another resident has also reported the same issues to the landlord. She also said that the landlord had not provided any updates regarding the actions promised as part of the stage 2 complaint response. These include sound proofing, the review of the ASB case, and the front door closer. The landlord’s records show it inspected the door closer on 6 Octboer 2023 and raised a job to replace it. However, the resident disputes this.

Assessment and findings

ASB

  1. It is evident from speaking to the resident that the situation she complained about was distressing for her. It is not our role to determine whether the nuisance she reported amounted to ASB. It is also not our role to determine whether any ASB took place. Our role in such cases is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its policies and procedures, in response to the reports made.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy gives examples of what it will not consider to be ASB. This includes children’s play and noise caused by the property’s design or layout. It says that it will not take action when there is insufficient evidence. It does however say that it will:
    1. Tell residents who will handle their ASB case and agree an action plan with them.
    2. Keep residents informed of the actions it takes.
    3. Contact residents before it closes a case and give reasons for this.
  3. There is evidence that the resident reported noise nuisance several times and that the landlord opened ASB cases on its system. However, we have seen no evidence that it told the resident who would be handling the case or that agreed any action plans with her. It failed to communicate well with the resident about the actions it could take in the circumstances and did not keep her updated when it took action, such as visiting the neighbour. It also closed cases without informing her. This meant that it failed to manage her expectations and she kept calling it for updates which cost her time and trouble.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise complaints, published in October 2022 recommended that landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy to handle noise reports that do not meet the statutory threshold. This should be distinct to the ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. It states that, this requires some landlords to recognise that noise transference is often the key issue and address the implications of this. By doing so, landlords could stop escalating complaints into ASB and focus more on prevention.
  5. We accept that landlords are not responsible for soundproofing homes above the standards applicable at the time of building. However, our Spotlight report recommends that actions taken to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance will, in the long run, be more cost-efficient than handling the subsequent noise nuisance report.
  6. There is evidence that the landlord has considered sound proofing within the block because the resident provided it with an email regarding this that it had sent her in 2016. In the stage 2 complaint response it said that a consultant would complete a survey and contact all residents regarding the sound proofing work by 30 Octboer 2023. However, the resident has told us that it has not kept this promise. The landlord’s failure to keep promises and communicate adequately about this issue has caused the resident distress and inconvenience it has also cost her further time and trouble chasing a response.
  7. Part of the resident’s complaint about noise nuisance was that the neighbour and their household slammed the communal front door. In the stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered to check the slow close mechanism and see if there was any other action it could take to alleviate the problem. The landlord has provided evidence that had requested a replacement in October 2023, however the resident disputes that this was followed through and says that the door slamming remains an issue. The landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident about completion of promised tasks have cost her further time and trouble chasing a response and the situation has caused her further distress.
  8. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says that residents must not leave any items in the communal areas including pushchairs and scooters. It says it will remove any items that it finds in the communal areas and that it will store any items valued at £50 or more giving the owner notice to arrange collection. If the owner does not collect the item within the notice period the policy says that the landlord will sell, donate, or dispose of the item.
  9. The resident has told us that there are only 3 individual properties that have access to the communal area within the converted house with only 1 of these households having children. Therefore, it should have been clear which property was responsible for leaving the pushchair and scooter in the communal area. However, the landlord directed correspondence and tort notices to all 3 households in the block. This lessened the impact of the notices and the resident told the landlord that the neighbour would remove the items and then put them out again once the notice had expired.
  10. It was clear that the tort notices were having no obvious impact and the issue continued. We have seen no evidence that the landlord considered taking any other action such as following its own policy and removing the items. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to keep contacting the landlord.
  11. In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It is acknowledged that the landlord took some positive steps to help resolve the situation. These included visits to the neighbour and offers of mediation. However, there was evidence of a lack of communication with the resident which led to her spending more time and effort chasing the landlord for updates. There was no evidence that the landlord set the resident’s expectations as to what action it could take, or that it followed up on the actions it promised it would take.
  12. The landlord offered £350 compensation at stage 2 of the complaint process to reflect the inconvenience caused. However, we do not feel that it recognised all its failings and therefore this was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result. We have therefore ordered it to pay £600 compensation to the resident to reflect this. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code in place at the time of the complaint said that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. This Service complained on behalf of the resident on 28 September 2022. However, the landlord failed to respond until we chased it again 9 months later. Overall, it took 201 working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint. This unacceptable delay and failure to follow the Code caused the resident distress and cost her time and trouble because she had to contact us. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
  3. The Code also said that any remedies proposed must clearly set out what will happen and by when and these must be followed through to completion.
  4. The landlord provided an action plan in both the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. However, it did not follow the actions through to completion on either occasion. This meant that it did not use the complaints process to get a resolution and communicate what it could, or could not, do to the resident. This caused her further distress and cost her further time and trouble contacting this Service again.
  5. The remedies offered in the stage 2 complaint response would have provided clarity for the resident, had they been completed. Particularly the offer to review the ASB case and clarify what actions the landlord would take moving forward. However, it failed to do so and this has caused the resident further distress because the landlord has not communicated its position on the matter.
  6. The landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and offered £130 compensation in the stage 2 complaint response to reflect this. However, this was not proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident because of its failings. We have therefore ordered it to pay £250 compensation to the resident.

 Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1.   Handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2.   Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior member of staff must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident directly compensation of £850 comprising:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its failure in handling her reports of ASB.
    2. £250 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £480. Therefore if the £480 has already been paid it must be deducted from £850 leaving the balance of £370.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must inspect the communal door closure. Within a further 2 weeks it must complete any necessary repairs or advise the resident if and why this is not possible.
  4. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the promised review of the ASB case. It must then provide feedback regarding the outcome of this to the resident and the Ombudsman. This to include as a minimum:
    1. A review of previous actions it has taken and any lessons it has learned from this.
    2. Any actions the resident can take to assist in achieving desired outcomes.
    3. What options are available to it to rectify any ongoing issues bearing in mind evidence required and proportionality.
  5. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must update the resident regarding the options available for sound proofing the property and what it intends to do regarding this.
  6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.