Southern Housing (202312546)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312546

Southern Housing

19 May 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 reports of antisocial behaviour.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of the property between April 2019 and November 2023. The property was a 1-bedroom flat which she rented out to tenants.
At the time of the complaint, the leaseholder’s daughter and grandchildren lived at the property. Both the leaseholder and her daughter made reports about issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord. For this report, we will refer to the leaseholder as such, and her daughter as “the leaseholder’s tenant”.
The leaseholder made a complaint to the landlord on 2 February 2023. She was unhappy with ongoing ASB issues of loud noises from the neighbours in the property below. She said she was unhappy that the landlord was “leaving the issues to the police” rather than acting itself. She also said it had not followed up the reports which she, and her previous tenants, had made for over 3 years.
The landlord provided the leaseholder with its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It said it:
1. Had closed the previous ASB case because of a lack of evidence provided.
2. Opened a new ASB case on 22 November 2022. It had remained in regular contact with the leaseholder and her tenant about the issues.
3. Had taken steps to investigate the reported ASB. This included reviewing the evidence provided, interviewing the alleged perpetrators, and sending out ASB surveys to neighbours. It had also met with the police to discuss the issues.
4. Did not have enough evidence to take legal action regarding the reported ASB. It explained that any action had to be proportionate, and evidence based.
5. Needed further evidence and asked the leaseholder and her tenant to provide this through diary sheets and the noise app to record the loud noises. It also asked her to report noise nuisance concerns to the local authority to investigate.
6. Would invite her to a multiagency meeting with the police and the local authority to discuss the appropriate actions needed.
The landlord escalated the leaseholder’s complaint to stage 2. It is unclear when it did so. However, its decision was prompted by multiple emails from the leaseholder expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of the reported ASB.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the leaseholder. It apologised for its delayed response. It said it still did not have enough evidence to take legal action against the alleged perpetrators. It said a multiagency meeting on 22 March 2023 discussed this issue. Following this, the leaseholder agreed to provide further evidence of the ASB and it confirmed that it would investigate any evidence provided. It reassured her that both the police and the local authority found no evidence of bias in its handling of the ASB. However, it apologised for any confusion caused by contacting both her and her tenant about the ASB issues. It said it would learn lessons from this by asking leaseholders how best to communicate about such issues in the future.
The leaseholder escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB issues. The leaseholder has since sold the property. She has requested compensation for the costs incurred by not being able to let the property due to the ASB issues. She also requested compensation for the reduced offer of £15,000 which the leaseholder said was a result of disclosing the ASB issues during the sales process. The complaint became one we could investigate on 24 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The leaseholder asked us to award compensation for her loss of income caused by the ASB issues. We cannot make liability decisions and ascertain whether the landlord was responsible for such losses. Such decisions may be better suited to the courts. We therefore cannot consider whether the landlord should compensate the leaseholder for her mortgage repayments and any depreciation of the property value. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns raised.
The leaseholder said she had experienced issues related to ASB for over 3 years. While this is noted, we encourage complaints to be raised in a timely manner, while the issues are live and at least within 6 months of the issues occurring. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. For fairness, the focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the reports of ASB from February 2022 onwards. This is 1 year before the leaseholder made her complaint. We will consider events up to the landlord’s final response in April 2023.
When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not our role to reach a decision on whether ASB occurred. Instead, we consider whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the ASB reports. We will therefore focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it followed good practice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.

The landlord has a responsibility to respond to reports of ASB within a reasonable timescale. The landlord’s ASB policy states that following a report, it will complete a risk assessment and take appropriate action. It will share the action plan with the complainant and provide regular updates every 15 days. It states that it will work in partnership with other agencies, such as the police and the local authority.
In March 2022, the police issued a community protection warning (CPW) to the alleged perpetrators. This aimed to prevent “unacceptable behaviour” of loud music, shouting and cannabis use. This remained valid for 1 year, until March 2023.
Following the issue of the CPW, the leaseholder’s tenant reported similar ASB concerns in June 2022. The landlord acted in line with its policy by opening an ASB case and completing an ASB risk assessment. It identified a medium risk to the tenant, highlighting issues such as loud music and cannabis smells which impacted the family’s sleep. It was appropriate for it to complete this to consider the risk of harm and individual needs of the leaseholder’s tenant and family.
The landlord asked the leaseholder’s tenant to complete diary sheets or record the loud noises via the noise app. It said it needed evidence to be able to act against the reported ASB. However, following a lack of evidence provided, it closed the ASB case in July 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances. By explaining its reasonings for closing the case, it acted in line with its ASB policy.
Similarly, in October 2022, the leaseholder reported concerns with noise nuisance from the neighbours below. Despite the landlord requesting evidence again, there is no evidence to show that the leaseholder provided anything further. The landlord therefore could not act without evidence.
On 22 November 2022, the leaseholder’s tenant reported ongoing ASB issues to the landlord. This included noise nuisance, drug dealing, drug usage, frequent visitors, and threats. The landlord opened an ASB case. It took appropriate action by asking the tenant to provide evidence so it could investigate the reports. It also consulted with the police to gather information about the issues reported. It was appropriate for it to work in partnership with other agencies. By doing so, it showed that it took her concerns seriously and acted in line with its policy.
However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord completed a new risk assessment. It should have done so to assess the risks posed to the leaseholder and her tenant, and to identify any potential support needs. It was not appropriate to rely on the previous risk assessment from the previous ASB case in June 2022.
This is reflected in statutory guidance issued alongside the Antisocial Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This states that risk assessments should be continuous and updated regularly as vulnerability and risk are not static concepts. By not doing so, the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate how the reported ASB issues impacted the leaseholder and her tenant. This was a failing.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered an updated risk assessment until 30 January 2023. On this date, the police completed its own risk assessment following a further ASB report from the leaseholder’s tenant. This identified a standard risk to the leaseholder’s tenant. It noted a risk of escalation if it did not offer support to her tenant. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the risk assessment completed by the police. Such risk assessments are more comprehensive than those completed by landlords and so we have found no failing for it doing so.
Despite the initial lack of risk assessment, the evidence provided shows that the landlord took appropriate action following the reports made in November 2022. It:
1. Asked for further evidence of the reported ASB by early January 2023. It said it would then review the evidence and take appropriate action. It extended this deadline to 10 February 2023 after her tenant said she had not stayed at the property much in December 2022.
2. Meaningfully engaged with a community trigger raised by the leaseholder on 16 January 2023. It consulted with the police and local authority and agreed steps with the leaseholder at a multiagency meeting held on 22 March 2023.
3. Repeated its request for evidence from the leaseholder and her tenant. It asked for diary sheets and use of the noise app for such evidence. It also advised reporting any noise nuisance incidents to the local authority’s environmental health team.
4. Sent ASB surveys out to other neighbours to try and gather information about the reported issues.
5. Interviewed the alleged perpetrators with the police.
6. Engaged with the leaseholder’s MP on 2 occasions in December 2022 and February 2023 after it received an MP enquiry about the issues.
7. Consulted with the local authority’s social care teams about the ASB issues reported.
8. Offered mediation with the neighbours to try to resolve the issues.
9. Provided regular updates of its progress in investigating the reported ASB concerns.
The landlord reviewed the evidence provided by the leaseholder and her tenant. On 16 March 2023, it wrote to the leaseholder to explain that the evidence provided did not support the “claim” of ASB. We are satisfied that an appropriate explanation was provided to support this conclusion. For example, the landlord explained a video clip provided only showed one-off banging while other videos had been edited. This showed it had carefully considered the evidence provided. It was therefore appropriate and reasonable for it to ask her for further evidence about the ASB issues.
Within the landlord’s contact on 16 March 2023, it also disclosed counter-allegations made by the alleged perpetrator. It was appropriate to notify the leaseholder of this to be open about its findings. The landlord provided examples of evidence showing ASB from the leaseholder/her tenant to the neighbours. It explained that any repeat incidents may result in legal action in the form of an injunction against the leaseholder. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the concerns raised during its ASB investigation. By doing so, it showed it independently investigated the issues reported by both parties.
In investigating such concerns, the landlord found the leaseholder’s lease did not permit subletting. While understandably frustrating for the leaseholder for this to be shared at a time when she was experiencing such ASB issues, it was appropriate for the landlord to put this to her in writing. This is because the landlord is obligated to uphold the terms of the lease.
The landlord, police, the local authority, and the leaseholder attended the community trigger meeting on 22 March 2023. It identified that the evidence provided was not sufficient to act against the neighbours. It agreed to meet again in June 2023 to allow more time for the leaseholder to provide evidence of the ASB.
To help gather further evidence, the landlord agreed to pay internet costs to allow a doorbell camera to record any incidents at the property. It also agreed to arrange 4 professional witness sessions after the cameras were set up. This was appropriate action to take to be able to obtain further evidence of the ASB issues, given the leaseholder’s tenant had then moved out.
Throughout the time of the ASB reports, the leaseholder explained how the issues impacted the health of her and her tenant’s young children. The landlord was sympathetic yet appropriately managed the leaseholder’s expectations of what action it could take. It repeatedly explained that it needed evidence of the reported ASB to consider legal action. It was appropriate for it to explain this, so the leaseholder understood its limitations. The landlord could only take reasonable and proportionate action where there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate the reported ASB. We note that at that time, the landlord could not corroborate the ASB and therefore its actions were limited.
In the landlord’s final complaint response on 27 April 2023, it provided an update on the leaseholder’s ASB case. It said it would review any further evidence provided to investigate the issues. It reiterated that it would continue to take a multiagency approach to resolving the issues which was appropriate for it to do. It also confirmed that both the police and local authority found no evidence of bias from the landlord within the community trigger case. It was good practice for it to explain this as it showed it considered the leaseholder’s concerns of how it responded to her ASB reports.
The landlord explained to the leaseholder that it would not purchase the property back from her. While the leaseholder was understandably unhappy with its decision, the landlord was not obligated to do so.
In the response, the landlord also appropriately acknowledged that it incorrectly stated it had not received a response from the ASB surveys. It said it had received 3 surveys and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the leaseholder by this error. The evidence provided to us shows the landlord did take appropriate action when it received the ASB survey responses in February 2023. The landlord’s apology was appropriate to reflect this shortcoming in its initial complaint response.
During the time of the reports, the landlord communicated with both the leaseholder and her tenant. The leaseholder’s complaint included concerns with this as she felt it did not communicate with her effectively. The landlord acknowledged this within its final response. It said it had spoken to both the leaseholder and her tenant because it was important to have direct contact with those witnessing the ASB. However, it acknowledged this may have caused confusion. As such, it said it had learned lessons to ask leaseholders for their preference about communication where they are not the main complainant in an ASB case. This was appropriate to show it had considered the leaseholder’s concerns and had learned lessons to prevent such issues going forward.
Overall, the landlord took appropriate action in response to the reports of ASB. It worked in partnership with the police and local authority to try to find a resolution. It appropriately explained that it could not take legal action without evidence of a breach of tenancy. It engaged meaningfully with the community trigger and offered support to the leaseholder in trying to provide further evidence of the reported ASB. However, its lack of risk assessment for over 2 months between the report in November 2022 and January 2023 was a failing. It did not act in line with its ASB policy and may have missed opportunities to offer further support during this time.
Considering the above, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. The landlord should pay the leaseholder £100 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its failing. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which caused an adverse impact. We acknowledge the leaseholder wishes for further compensation for her mortgage repayments and property depreciation. However, as explained previously, this is not within our remit to order the landlord to pay.

The complaint handling.

The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints policy. At the time of the complaint, it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At stage 2, it would consider the complaint at a review panel. The landlord would inform the leaseholder of the panel’s decision within 10 working days of the panel meeting. However, if that was not possible, it would provide its response within 20 working days from the date of the review. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The leaseholder made her complaint on 2 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 February 2023. It later provided its stage 1 response on 20 February 2023. It therefore acted in line with its policy by responding within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
Following this, the leaseholder sent multiple emails to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its response. While we do not have a copy of the leaseholder’s escalation reasons, it was appropriate for the landlord to escalate the complaint on her behalf. This is because it was clear that she remained unhappy with its initial response.
The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the complaint escalation to stage 2 to the leaseholder. However, it is unclear when it sent this. This information should be clearly visible to support the maintenance of an accurate audit trail. Given the omission, we cannot assess the time taken between the escalation date and the review panel meeting on 30 March 2023. Nevertheless, it is evident the landlord remained in communication with the leaseholder during this period. It had also met with her to discuss her concerns with the ASB at the community trigger meeting on 22 March 2023. Therefore, any delays which may have occurred did not have any detrimental impact on the overall handling of the complaint itself.
The landlord told the leaseholder that it would hold the review panel meeting on 30 March 2023. It said it would then provide its final complaint response to her by 18 April 2023. However, it later provided its response on 27 April 2023. It therefore took 19 working days to provide its response after the review panel meeting. Its policy outlines it can take up to 20 working days to respond if it needs more time, but it would provide an update if this was needed. There is no evidence to show that the landlord updated the leaseholder of the delay in providing its response. Its lack of communication would have understandably caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience.
In the final response, the landlord apologised for its delayed response. It was appropriate for it to do so. However, it did not consider any compensation to reflect the full impact caused to the leaseholder by its failings. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord should pay the leaseholder £50 compensation. This is to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused by its delayed response and not acting in line with its policy. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not significantly impact the overall outcome for the leaseholder.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the leaseholder in writing for the failings identified within this investigation.
2. Pay £150 compensation to the leaseholder. This consists of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Provide refresher training to its staff responding to reports of antisocial behaviour. This should focus on the importance of completing and updating risk assessments. It should provide evidence of the training through information circulated to the relevant staff. If it delivers the training through a meeting, it should provide us with a copy of the meeting minutes to show what it discussed.
The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with these orders within the period set out above.