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

Southern Housing (202409183)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409183

Southern Housing

31 January 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Concerns about a neighbour subletting a property.
    3. Reports of the conduct of its staff member.
    4. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware the resident has several medical conditions including depression and anxiety.

The complaint about staff conduct, subletting, and ASB (the first complaint)

  1. On 21 March 2024, the resident complained that the landlord failed to investigate her reports of subletting. She said it forced her to live with ASB and harassment from the person allegedly subletting the flat above her property. She made a second complaint on 2 April 2024 about the professional conduct and communication of a member of the landlord’s staff.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 July 2024, stating it had investigated and found no evidence to substantiate the resident’s allegation of subletting. It addressed her concerns about a member of staff. It recognised it made 2 mistakes when informing her of the outcome of her management move request. It said while it rectified this promptly, it apologised for the impact caused. It offered £130 compensation.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 5 July 2024, with several concerns about the information the landlord relied on within its initial response.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024. It maintained its position in its initial complaint response. It explained that another complaint had considered its handling of the resident’s reports of harassment. It re-offered the £130 compensation that it previously offered at stage 1. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her complaint to this Service.

The complaint about graffiti (the second complaint)

  1. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 July 2023 about a delay removing a derogatory slur graffitied on a communal door that she had reported 2 weeks prior.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 May 2024. It confirmed it had removed the graffiti on 9 August 2023. It offered £150 compensation in recognition of the delay.
  3. On 29 May 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. She requested further investigation by the landlord and increased compensation. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 6 August 2024. It said that while there was a clear focus on removing the graffiti, staff did not deal with the matter as an incident of harassment through its ASB policy. It acknowledged it missed an opportunity to support the resident. It shared an action plan and offered a meeting between her, its staff, and an independent mediator. It offered £650 compensation, inclusive of the £150 offered at stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. On 31 October 2023, the Ombudsman issued determination 202216138 which considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, including her request for the landlord to rehouse her. We also considered the landlord’s communication. The resident has referenced some of the same issues within her correspondence with this Service. In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, we may not investigate matters which the Housing Ombudsman has already decided upon. Therefore, we will not review events which took place prior to 7 December 2022 (the date of the landlord’s final complaint response in determination 202216138).
  2. The resident has expressed concerns about potential housing fraud concerning the alleged sub-let property. This Service does not consider complaints that concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide, in accordance with paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme. This Service is not the appropriate body to investigate an allegation of fraud, nor can we determine whether a property is being sublet. As such, we will not consider whether the resident’s neighbour was subletting a property or comment on housing fraud. Rather, we will consider how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns.
  3. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, we make our determination against the landlord rather than the individual. We cannot order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members. We also do not have the authority to instruct a landlord to ensure that specific members of staff do not have any contact or involvement with the resident or their case going forward. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.h. of the Scheme which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

ASB

  1. The crux of the resident’s complaint is that her neighbour has engaged in ASB towards her by attempting to break into her property, “mirroring” her activities when she is in her property, making excessive noise, and buzzing her intercom. She also believed her neighbour was responsible for graffiti. It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she was distressed by the situation and believes this distress has been exacerbated by the lack of strong action by the landlord to tackle the problem. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s feelings.
  2. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate the incidents or to assess the credibility of the resident’s reports. Our role is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received and decide whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances, in accordance with its policies and its obligations under the tenancy agreement and any relevant legislation.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as per the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  4. The landlord’s ASB policy explains that it will ask residents to keep records of incidents by completing diary sheets or using its noise app to help it investigate reports. If the ASB reported is also a crime, it expects residents to report to the police first and engage with them.
  5. As stated above, this report considers events from December 2022 onwards. In January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that, while it had investigated her reports of ASB, it had no evidence of the allegations to satisfy further action. It recognised she wanted it to apply for an injunction and explained that to progress this, it needed sufficient evidence to satisfy a judge that there had been a breach of tenancy. At this time, it did not feel that the information provided met a threshold for an injunction. The Ombudsman finds the landlord acted reasonably by setting out its position to the resident and advising her to report further incidents via the noise app or to the police directly if necessary.
  6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 May 2023, acknowledging that she had provided a further record of incidents from 29 April to 8 May 2023. The Ombudsman has reviewed these incidents, which references the neighbour above moving to the same areas of their flat as the resident in the flat below. It also references 1 loud bang. However, there was no objective evidence to support this submission.
  7. In response to the above, the landlord advised the resident that it had assessed the incidents against its policy and concluded that the incidents “had not met the threshold for action under [our] ASB policy and procedure.” It stated that it “did not feel that the activities taking place in your neighbour’s home are likely to cause harassment or are capable of causing nuisance or annoyance.” It explained when responding to complaints of ASB, it must collect evidence which helps it to understand the nature of the nuisance taking place, the frequency, who is responsible and whether there are any mitigating factors. It offered the resident the noise app as a tool of gathering further evidence. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds it was appropriate for the landlord to clearly set out its position and manage the resident’s expectations.
  8. In July 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour had defaced a communal door and written a derogatory slur about her. She also reported this to the police. Additionally, there was a previous report of a swastika painted within the block. The landlord explained that there were no witnesses and no CCTV covering the areas where the graffiti occurred. It was fair for it to explain to her that without evidence of a perpetrator, there were constraints to investigate this incident any further. It is clear the landlord reflected on its actions within its stage 2 response. It acted appropriately by apologising and compensating for the delay removing the graffiti. Additionally, it recognised that it ought to have taken a victim centred approach, considered the matter through its ASB policy, and explored options to support the resident. The landlord’s final complaint response recognised its shortcomings and offered total compensation of £650 to the resident. £150 of this was for complaint handling which the Ombudsman has addressed separately below.
  9. Our remedies guidance suggests an award in the range of £100 to £600 for failings which adversely affected a resident. After considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord recognised its shortcomings and intended to put things right with its compensation offer. Furthermore, it set out a detailed action plan with defined timescales, outlined learning from the complaint, offered a meeting between its staff, the resident, and a professional mediator, and gave an option for an independent ASB specialist to review its handling of this case. This demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to be fair, rebuild the landlord/tenant relationship and learn from the resident’s experience. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds this was reasonable.
  10. Following the complaint, the landlord evidenced that it installed CCTV within the block and offered the resident the option of professional witnesses. Considering the nature of the ASB reported by the resident, the Ombudsman finds this was pragmatic and appropriate. The landlord could have arranged professional witnesses at an earlier stage, however once offered, the resident had not pursued this option in a timely manner. Therefore, it is unlikely this would have made a substantive difference to the outcome.

Subletting

  1. Following the resident’s report of subletting, the landlord opened an investigation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. For data protection reasons, this Service will not disclose the specific details of the landlord’s investigation. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and conducted several enquiries.
  2. The landlord concluded it was aware of who was living in the flat above and was satisfied that no sub-letting was taking place. While the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s consideration of subletting, we conclude that the actions taken by the landlord were reasonable and proportionate.

Staff conduct

  1. The complaint about staff conduct relates in part to how the staff member handled the ASB reports. Specifically, on 9 April 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about a member of staff. For ease, the Ombudsman has referred to this member of staff as “A” throughout this assessment. The resident was dissatisfied with A’s communication, support, and liaison with her advocates. She accused them of ignoring updates about her moving into a crisis house and felt they had not considered the logs of ASB provided.
  2. The landlord arranged for 3 members of staff, including the head of region, to review the resident’s concerns. Considering the extensive nature of the complaints raised by the resident, the Ombudsman finds this was proportionate and demonstrates the landlord took her concerns seriously.
  3. Within its stage 1 response in July 2024, the landlord addressed each of the resident’s concerns under a separate sub-heading. This was clear and effective to show the landlord had considered each point. After reviewing the information available, it explored the resident’s concerns and responded appropriately. At stage 2, it maintained its position. Further, it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about future contact from A. This was evidently disappointing for her. However, the landlord explained why A may contact her in future. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. As a result of the multiple complaints about A and their handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, the landlord offered for an independent company to assess its response. It explained that an independent ASB specialist could provide an objective appraisal of its handling of the resident’s reports and provide recommendations on how it could improve in the future. On balance, the Ombudsman is minded that this review would have considered the interaction between the landlord’s staff and the resident. This is evidence that it sought to act impartially and with transparency and learn from the resident’s experience.
  5. As part of its investigation, the landlord identified 2 mistakes in the information it provided to the resident concerning the outcome of her management move request and her request for interim temporary accommodation. The Ombudsman appreciates the impact this had on the resident considering her vulnerabilities and the amount of time she had been pursuing the matter.
  6. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the conduct of A seriously. It thoroughly investigated the evidence it had and set out its position with clarity and provided the option of external input to form an impartial view of its actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman welcomes the fact it offered mediation with the resident (as mentioned above), to build trust and improve future communications. This was a supportive and appropriate approach.
  7. The landlord apologised for the failings it identified and, in the Ombudsman’s view, responded with empathy. It considered the impact on the resident and offered £130 compensation. This was in line with our remedies guidance which suggests compensation in this region is appropriate when there has been a failing that adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 1 to the first complaint on 3 July 2024, more than 14 weeks after she initially complained on 21 March 2024. She escalated the complaint on 5 July 2024, to which the landlord issued its final complaint response on 9 August 2024, 5 weeks later. The Code serves to illustrate the landlord kept both complaints open for an unreasonable duration.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the second complaint 43 weeks after the resident complained on 23 May 2024. She escalated the complaint on 29 May 2024. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 6 August 2024, more than 9 weeks later.
  4. The Ombudsman understands the resident had raised several complaints and submitted large amounts of information to the landlord. We have not referenced all her complaints within this report. We appreciate it was challenging for the landlord to manage multiple complaints and emails. As such, we find its request for a face-to-face meeting with the resident to discuss her complaints, how best to manage future communication, and reasonable adjustments was appropriate, and demonstrated a willingness to understand and resolve matters.
  5. Nonetheless, the landlord failed to respond in line with the timescales set out in the Code. While it provided letters extending the complaint response date, it did not provide meaningful updates. Considering the nature of the complaints, the Ombudsman appreciates this was distressing to the resident. Furthermore, records demonstrate she spent a lot of time chasing for a response.
  6. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation of £50 to £100 is a suitable financial remedy where there has been a shortcoming in the service provided by a landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Reports of the conduct of its staff member
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a neighbour subletting a property
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay £225 compensation to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified. This is inclusive of the £150 previously offered.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £500 previously offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £130 it previously offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct, in view of it providing incorrect information to her.
  3. The above recommendations recognise genuine elements of service failure. The Ombudsman has made the reasonable redress findings on the basis the landlord pays the above compensation to the resident.