Southern Housing (202225067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225067

Southern Housing

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
2. disclosure of information to third parties about the resident’s parking and antisocial behaviour (ASB) complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. It owns 4 spaces in a car park near to the resident’s property. The landlord permits the resident and 3 of his neighbours, who are also its tenants, to park in the 4 spaces.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023 and reported that a caravan was being parked in car park spaces belonging to it. He suggested the caravan belonged to a tenant of a private landlord in a nearby property (Neighbour A). He complained that the car park was not well maintained and that there was a fly tipping issue within it.
On 6 May 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint (Complaint 1) with the landlord about its handling of his car park concerns. He also asked the landlord to address within the complaint response his concerns that he was the victim of harassment and ASB. He said that when he asked Neighbour A to move their vehicle from the landlord’s spaces, Neighbour A verbally abused him.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 1 on 20 May 2022. It set out the action it had taken in response to the resident’s car parking concerns. This included that it had contacted Neighbour A and secured their agreement to move the caravan. It said it also intended to put signs up in the car park to say the 4 spaces were for its tenants use only. In relation to maintenance, it explained it was investigating ownership of the remainder of the car park.
In response to the resident’s concerns about harassment and ASB, the landlord explained in the stage 1 response that it could only investigate if the resident provided it with more information. For example, the date, time and details of any witnesses to any incidents.
The landlord noted in the stage 1 response the resident had asked it to investigate the ASB “discreetly”. It advised him that if he did not wish it to contact the other party, it was “unclear what the desired outcome of such an investigation could be.”
The landlord also noted that the resident had asked it to write to the landlord of Neighbour A. It explained that it had no information about who the owners of the property were or if it was rented out as the resident had suggested. It could therefore only contact the current residents “in good faith” to discuss the issues involving them.
On 4 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and requested a stage 2 review of his complaint. On 29 July 2022 he contacted it again and asked for an update on his stage 2 complaint. During this call he reported a neighbour had verbally abused and physically threatened him.
The landlord then spoke with Neighbour A and another neighbour. It wrote to the resident on 19 August 2022 and advised that it had spoken to the “alleged perpetrator” about the incident. It explained that it had no enforcement powers in relation to them as they were not its tenant. It advised the resident to report any threatening behaviour from others to the police.
Meanwhile, on 29 July 2022, the resident also contacted the Ombudsman and asked for our assistance as the landlord had not yet issued its stage 2 response to Complaint 1. We contacted the landlord and asked it to issue a stage 2 response. We advised it the outcome the resident sought was for it to contact the landlords of the private tenants involved.
The landlord contacted the resident and spoke to him about his complaint before issuing its stage 2 response on 23 August 2022. Within the response it set out a timeline summarising the action it had taken to date in relation to the car park, and ASB. It said:
1. It should have opened an ASB case on 6 May 2022 when the resident first reported Neighbour A had verbally abused him as part of Complaint 1.
2. Instead, it dealt with the ASB as part of its response to Complaint 1.
3. This meant it did not, as required by its ASB procedure, contact the resident within 2 working days of his initial report to explain next steps and offer him advice relating to the incident.
4. It complied with all other aspects of its ASB procedure. It discussed the resident’s concerns with him, it just failed to do this within 2 working days. It also contacted Neighbour A and it took action to manage the car park going forward.
5. Following the resident’s further report of ASB and threats on 29 July 2022, it opened an ASB case. It wrote to him on 19 August 2022 to explain what action it had taken in the case and to advise him to report threats to the police.
6. In relation to the resident’s desired outcome that it wrote to the landlords of his neighbours, it had previously explained to him it had “no recourse to contacting the private owners of these properties”.
7. When the resident initially asked to escalate his complaint, it had set up a duplicate complaint case in error. This caused confusion internally and led to a delay in it escalating Complaint 1 to stage 2.
8. A further reason for its delay in issuing the stage 2 response was that it initially allocated the ASB case file and the stage 2 investigation to the same staff member. In line with its complaints process, it then reallocated the stage 2 investigation to a different staff member.
9. It offered him £75 compensation. This comprised £50 for its “service failures” due to its delays in acknowledging the resident’s ASB case and escalating the complaint. It also included a £25 “goodwill gesture” to acknowledge the confusion it had caused by creating a duplicate complaint.
On 11 October 2022 the resident raised a further formal complaint (Complaint 2) with the landlord about its management of the parking spaces. Within this he also raised concern that the landlord had discussed his tenancy with his neighbours and told them that he had complained about them in relation to the parking and ASB. He complained that the landlord should have kept this information confidential.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to Complaint 2 on 1 November 2022. It said:
1. It had not discussed the resident’s tenancy with any of the neighbours.
2. When dealing with ASB complaints it did not advise the alleged perpetrators who the complainant was. However, it did “not guarantee anonymity as often due to the detail of the issues that are being investigated the complainant is easily identifiable.”
3. As part of the ASB case it opened in July 2022, it spoke to the resident’s neighbours about the altercation he reported. It therefore would have “made it easier for the alleged perpetrators to assume that the complaints were coming from [the resident]”.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to both Complaint 1 and Complaint 2. He told us he was unhappy with how the landlord had responded to his concerns about the parking and that it had disclosed confidential information to his neighbours. He asked us to investigate both these issues.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the complaint about the landlord’s disclosure of information to third parties about the resident’s parking and ASB complaints is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, were made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. In other words, complaints to which the landlord has not issued a stage 2 response. We would usually only consider such complaints if the landlord should have escalated it to stage 2, for example, because the resident asked for a review, but it failed to do so.
The resident raised concerns within his complaint on 11 October 2022 (Complaint 2) that the landlord disclosed confidential information to his neighbours. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 of its internal complaint process on 1 November 2022. It stated in the stage 1 response that if the resident wished to escalate the complaint, he should let it know within 20 days.
We have seen no evidence that the resident asked to escalate Complaint 2 within 20 days or at a later date. He was in contact with the landlord in January 2023 to report that the parking issues were still ongoing. However, we have seen no evidence that he asked to escalate Complaint 2 at that time or expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 response to his concerns about the disclosure of information.
We are therefore unable to investigate the resident’s complaint about the disclosure of information on the grounds that it did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. We have seen no evidence that it was due to a complaint handling failure that the landlord did not issue a stage 2 response.
Even if this complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the scope of our investigation would likely have been limited. We potentially could have considered the landlord’s communications with the resident prior to it contacting the neighbours. However, whether it directly or indirectly disclosed “confidential” information, and whether this breached data protection legislation, is a matter that falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) rather than the Ombudsman. The resident may wish to contact the ICO about his concerns accordingly.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised formal complaints about the landlord’s response to his parking concerns on 6 May 2022 (Complaint 1) and 11 October 2022 (Complaint 2). However, as we have explained above, we are unable to consider the issues he raised within Complaint 2 as this did not progress to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This means our assessment of the landlord’s response to his parking concerns is limited to the issues he raised in Complaint 1. We have assessed the landlord’s actions up to 23 August 2022 as this was the date it issued the stage 2 response to Complaint 1.

Response to the resident’s concerns about parking

We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
The landlord received a report from the resident on 21 March 2023 that Neighbour A had parked their caravan in its parking spaces. The resident also reported the car park was not well maintained and there was an issue with fly tipping.
The landlord took the following action in response to the resident’s concern a caravan was parked in the spaces:
1. It carried out a site visit the following week on 1 April 2022. It established a caravan was parked in one of its spaces.
2. It knocked on the resident’s door while on site but he was not in, so it rang him the same day to discuss his concerns.
3. It advised him on the phone that:
  1. it would contact Neighbour A and ask them to move the caravan.
  2. it would put signs up to say the 4 spaces were for its tenants and their guests to park in only.
4. It carried out a further site visit on 26 April 2022. It intended to speak to Neighbour A during this visit but was unable to.
5. It therefore sent a letter to Neighbour A asking they remove the caravan as it owned the spaces and they did not have permission to park it there. The letter did not refer either directly or indirectly to the resident. It did not suggest that a complaint had been made or indicate how it had become aware of the issue.
6. The landlord was satisfied by 10 May 2022 that Neighbour A had moved the caravan.
7. It installed the signs regarding ownership of the 4 spaces on 6 June 2022.
We find that the above actions by the landlord were timely, reasonable and proportionate. It spoke to the resident about his concerns and appropriately investigated the site for itself before determining what action to take. It was limited in the action it could take against Neighbour A given they were not one of its tenants, but through communication secured their agreement to move the caravan.
The resident indicated in his complaint that the landlord should have contacted the private landlord of Neighbour A. However, as the landlord explained in its complaint responses, it was not its place to interfere in the relationship between Neighbour A and their private landlord, assuming they were indeed a tenant. Its concern was with the person who had parked a caravan in its parking spaces. It understood that person to be Neighbour A. It was therefore reasonable that it sought to engage directly with Neighbour A and this resulted in the removal of the caravan at that time.
In relation to the items that had been fly tipped in the car park, the landlord found during its site visit on 1 April 2022 that wood and a freezer had been left in the car park, but not within its spaces. Where such items are left on private land, it is usually the responsibility of the landowner to arrange their removal. As the landlord did not own the area of the car park in which the items had been left, it was not responsible for removing them.
The landlord reasonably suggested to the resident during its phone call with him on 1 April 2022 that it would investigate who owned the rest of the car park. It followed through on this commitment and its legal team carried out investigations. On 6 June 2022 it wrote to the resident and its 3 other tenants who used the spaces and advised them of the name of a private company. It said this company owned the rest of the car park and that private homeowners in the area were likely to own the remaining parking spaces.
We do not know if the landlord made attempts to contact the company and ask it to address the fly tipping. It would have been reasonable for it to do given it had an interest in part of the car park. However, we do not consider it a failure if it did not as it was under no obligation to do so. We also recognise there may have been difficulties with establishing who was responsible on a day to day basis for managing the company’s share of the car park given it had likely leased or licensed parts of it to private residents. We recommend that the landlord establishes if there is a point of contact within the private company that it and the resident can report any future maintenance or fly tipping concerns to. If it is able to establish this, it should provide the contact details to the resident.
Another maintenance issue raised by the resident in his complaint was that the white lines around the landlord’s 4 spaces were badly drawn out. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the white lines did not match up with “briquette” edging that denoted the space of each width. It said it would consider repainting these to align with the true width of each space but that it may not be able to so immediately given budget constraints.
As a social housing provider, the landlord had a limited budget. It was therefore reasonable that it said it would carry out the repainting work when its budget permitted. It was not urgent work and the poorly painted lines were not preventing its tenants from being able to use the spaces. While we acknowledge that this would have been disappointing for the resident, this was a reasonable response in the circumstances.
Overall, we find that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about parking. It investigated his concerns, considered ways to resolve the issues, and communicated its proposals to him.
Since the landlord issued its stage 2 response, we note it has responded to and investigated further reports from the resident of unauthorised parking in the spaces. While we recognise the resident’s frustration, it is reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to respond to reports received from its tenants. It is not obliged by the tenancy agreement to provide continual monitoring of the car park.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about parking.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s disclosure of information to third parties about the resident’s parking and anti-social behaviour complaints is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Recommendation

We recommend the landlord establishes if there is a point of contact within the private company that owns the car park, to which any future concerns about maintenance and fly tipping can be reported. If it is able to establish this, it should provide the contact details to the resident.