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

Southern Housing (202217647)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217647

Southern Housing Group Limited

17 April 2024


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 the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 6 September 2010, he lives in a 2 bedroom house and cannot use the upstairs of the property as is a wheelchair user. The resident has also been diagnosed with bi-polar disorder.
  2. The evidence suggests the resident had complained about neighbours for some time prior to making a complaint. Between the dates 15 August 2022 and 20 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 occasions to report ASB from 3 of his neighbours. The ASB reported was:
    1. Dog faeces being thrown into his garden.
    2. Neighbours pointing cameras at his property and taking pictures using flash photography.
    3. Banging on the walls.
    4. Harassment/intimidation from neighbours.
    5. The use of foul language.
  3. The Ombudsman requested the landlord raise a complaint on the residents behalf on 7 December 2022 about how his ASB reports had been handled. The landlord acknowledged this request on 9 December 2022 and wrote to the resident advising a response would be provided within 10 working days. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 January 2023. Within its response the landlord confirmed it had interviewed the alleged perpetrators who had denied all the allegations the resident had made. It confirmed no evidence had been submitted by the resident to substantiate the allegations and the alleged perpetrators had made counter allegations of harassment by the resident due to the historical repeated allegations against them. It confirmed it had made 2 appointments to visit the resident to view his evidence he had recorded but both of these appointments had been cancelled by the resident. It concluded its response advising the ASB case may be closed if no evidence was submitted and if continued allegations were made without evidence the landlord may limit the residents contact under its acceptable behaviour policy.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint as he felt the housing manager should not be involved in his ASB investigation and requested the evidence which the counter allegations made against him, were based on. The resident contacted the Ombudsman with his escalation request on 20 January 2023 and stated the landlord was not taking his reports seriously and refused to view his evidence. The Ombudsman requested the landlord consider this escalation request on 1 February 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 9 February 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 March 2023. It confirmed the resident had requested the harassment from staff, alleged victimisation and blocking of complaints be added to his complaint at stage 2. The landlord confirmed it had found no evidence that the residents reports had not been logged or taken seriously. Nor had it found any evidence to suggest harassment from staff. It reiterated that in order for the ASB reports to be progressed or action taken that evidence would be required. It confirmed the resident had a priority management transfer on medical grounds but had only listed 1 area as a suitable location for an alternative property. The landlord acknowledged that following its stage 1 response the resident had contacted it on numerous occasions but not been advised of his right to request his complaint be escalated. For this, it apologised and offered £50 in recognition of its service failure.
  6. The resident initially contacted the Ombudsman on 8 November 2022, following the stage 2 response he contacted the Ombudsman on 20 March 2023 and stated the landlord had “completely ignored” the requests to investigate ASB and view his recordings. The resident would like the be relocated to another property, a staff member not to be involved in his ASB cases and the ASB stopped as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has previously brought a separate complaint to the Ombudsman, (201913277), relating to similar issues of ASB, for which the Ombudsman has made a determination on. This related to the period up to May 2020. For clarity, although similar in nature, this was a separate complaint to the one addressed in this report and is mentioned only to differentiate between the two time periods. In accordance with Paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this service cannot make a determination on matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. In addition, this investigation will consider the landlord’s actions from August 2022 onwards. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  3. The resident has said the situation with his neighbours has impacted his wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, however, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint made and the resident’s wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience arising from the landlord’s service failures.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).

  1. Having considered the information supplied to this investigation, it is important to note that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it had received and whether it had followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all of the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB & Hate crime policy echoes this and states it will take a balanced approach to preventing and reducing ASB, any action it may take would be based on the circumstances of each case and will be proportionate to the behaviour. It is clear from the evidence provided this is a long standing neighbour dispute which the landlord has tried to investigate numerous times. The resident reported ASB from his neighbours on 21 occasions between 15 August 2022 and 20 November 2022. As the reports varied in the type of ASB reported, it was reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to notify the alleged perpetrators directly of the allegations made and speak to them about the allegations.
  3. The resident had reported dog fowl being thrown into his garden, noise nuisance and harassment, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of the ASB reported from the resident following its investigation, where it could not substantiate the resident’s reports. In its letter dated 27 September 2022 the landlord clearly communicated the outcome of its investigations and what evidence could be submitted, including diary sheets or photographic evidence. Furthermore, as per its ASB policy the landlord advised it may close the case if there was no evidence to take further action. The landlord reiterated this point in letters dated 25 October 2022 and again on 5 December 2022, following further reports of ASB from the resident.
  4. Where a landlord investigates ASB, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make it very clear from the outset what actions it will take to investigate the reports. Equally as important, the landlord must also manage a resident’s expectations as to what action it can or cannot take, as the actions available to it may fall short of a resident’s preferred resolution. In this case the landlord stated, in its letters dated 5 December 2022, that without evidence to substantiate the residents reports of ASB it may not be able to further investigate reports of ASB made. This was not an unreasonable stance for the landlord to take as it had tried to gather evidence but been unsuccessful and the resident did not produce any evidence it had requested previously.
  5. The landlord offered to attend the resident’s property to review the evidence the resident had on 3 occasions. It is not clear from the evidence however, what occurred on 20 January 2023, when the landlord was due to attend the resident’s property after two cancelled appointments but failed to, according to the resident. This could be a record keeping error but is still a failure as no evidence has been seen to show the reason for this and whether this was communicated back to the resident, even within its final complaint response.
  6. When a landlord receives reports of antisocial behaviour, it is required to investigate those reports. This may include speaking to any witnesses, reviewing incident diaries, and liaising with the police or other agencies where appropriate. After reviewing the evidence gathered, the landlord would then determine the most appropriate action on a case-by-case basis.
  7. Within the documents there is evidence that the landlord took several steps to address the resident’s concerns between late 2022 and early 2023, including speaking to neighbours not involved in the case to see if they had witnessed any ASB and reaching out to agencies such as the police. Through these actions the landlord has been able to demonstrate that it took the residents concerns seriously and sought to investigate and respond to the issues raised. Its complaint responses addressed the issues the resident had raised, while the resident’s frustration with some of the landlord’s findings is acknowledged, particularly where his allegations were found to be “not proven”, this was not an unreasonable position for the landlord to take without evidence to substantiate the ASB.
  8. Overall, the landlord’s responses were proportionate. In order to progress the residents reports of ASB and take any enforcement action, the landlord would need to be satisfied that the behaviour was a breach of tenancy. As no evidence of the allegations made was received, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to conclude it could not take further action. Generally, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint well. It responded appropriately, identified a service failure in its stage 2 review and offered compensation for this. It did fail to acknowledge and explain why it had not attended the resident’s property on 20 January 2023 however, which added to the resident’s complaints about the landlord. As a result of this, a finding of service failure has been made in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its failure identified in this report. This amount includes its previous offer of £50 made in its final complaint response, if this has already been paid to the resident, the landlord should pay the resident a further £50.
  2. The landlord should discuss and agree a way forward with the resident on gathering evidence if the ASB allegations have continued, to ensure each report is acknowledged and actioned in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.