Southern Housing (202419050)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419050

Southern Housing

29 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Fire safety concerns.
3. Issues with window cleaning in the block.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, under a shared ownership scheme. The landlord is a housing association, and this is a 1 bedroom flat in a block. There are no resident vulnerabilities noted on file.
The resident first reported noise nuisance and ASB to the landlord on 1 February 2024. She said that she had an ongoing issue with noise from her next-door neighbour (also a leaseholder), who often played loud music at antisocial hours, which was “bouncing off her walls.” She said she had also uploaded recordings to the Noise App (the sound monitoring application used by the landlord). She made a further noise report on 4 February 2024.
The resident made 4 further reports of noise nuisance between 23 February 2024 and 17 May 2024. She said the noise nuisance was affecting her mental health. On 20 May 2024, the landlord’s service manager left the resident a voicemail, asking her to email him directly if the issues were continuing.
The resident made a complaint on 21 June 2024. She said:
1. She had made repeated reports of ASB on the following dates: 1, 6, 7 and 23 February 2024, 8 and 29 March 2024, 27 April 2024, 25 May 2024 and 21 June 2024.
2. She had also sent several noise app recordings from 27 January to 20 June 2024.
3. In response to the above, she had received only 1 reply on 6 February 2024, when the property manager had told her it would be in touch the following week. But she never heard from the property manager again.
4. She had also received 1 voicemail from the services manager in May 2024. When she emailed him in response to his voicemail, he did not respond.
5. She had repeatedly asked for help in the past 6 months and had been ignored.
6. She also wished to complain about the increase in car parking service charges.
7. She was unhappy with the standard and frequency of the window cleaning and that the landlord’s window cleaners had not cleaned her windows in June 2024, as they were meant to.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2024. It said it would send a full written response by 15 July 2024. On 15 July 2024, it wrote to the resident requesting an extension until 29 July 2024, to issue its stage 1 complaint response. It then wrote to the resident again on 29 July 2024 to request a further extension to the stage 1 complaint response. It said that it needed until 12 August 2024 to respond. The resident did not give the landlord permission to extend.
The resident made a further report of noise nuisance and raised building safety concerns on 20 August 2024. She said the neighbour was having a loud party and barbecue (BBQ) on the balcony, which she felt was a health and safety issue and breach of lease. She attached photographs of the BBQ.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 August 2024. It said:
1. It was aware of the ongoing noise nuisance issue and had listened to the resident’s recordings and it had not found the noise to be of a significant level of ASB. The noise app did not always accurately record certain noise types such as bass. To remedy this, it wanted to discuss other options, such as a witness to attend at peak noise times. The landlord’s home ownership team would be in touch to discuss these options. In the meantime, it asked the resident to continue recording for continuity of evidence in the case.
2. It apologised for the disruption in the property and for its poor handling of the situation. It also apologised for the poor communication from the resident’s previous property manager. She would be assigned a new property manager shortly as her previous one had changed job role. The new property manager would be in touch by 2 September 2024 to discuss the noise app, lack of communication and all other issues.
3. Its window cleaning contractors had told it that it they would only clean blocks with unobstructed windows. It asked her to remove all her furniture and plant pots prior to the cleaners attending.
4. It had consulted its service charge manager regarding the car parking service charge increase and would be in touch by 2 September 2024.
5. It upheld the complaint due to lack of communication and service failures and complaint handling. It awarded £90 compensation for this and a further £50 discretionary compensation for inconvenience and time and trouble. This was a total of £140.
The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 23 August 2024. She said:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had asked for 2 complaint response extensions and had then not kept to these.
2. She was unwell and had taken time off work with mental health difficulties, caused by lack of sleep because of her next-door neighbours. Her daily life was affected, and the noise was substantial. She had recorded it on the noise app, but it did not always register the noise as it was “a pounding bass” that reverberated along her walls. There were also late-night parties on the balcony.
3. The ASB plan suggested was “of little value.” The new property manager had told her they would not be willing to come at peak noise hours to witness the noise. She wanted the landlord to take enforcement action against her neighbour for the noise, and for the BBQ on their balcony.
4. She had moved her balcony furniture and pots each time the window cleaners had requested access. The last time she moved everything (July 2024) and the cleaners did not attend.
5. She was unhappy with the level of service charges and the increase.
6. She did not want financial compensation. She wanted to be listened to and for the landlord to act on the neighbour’s breach of the lease.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 September 2024. It said:
1. It could not attend out of office hours but could arrange an independent witness to attend. It apologised for any misunderstanding. The property manager would contact her to arrange an independent witness. She could also report the noise nuisance to the local council Environmental Health (EH) department outside of working hours.
2. It would take appropriate action regarding the BBQ on the balcony as this was a breach of the lease. It could not share the actions due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
3. It reiterated its response about the window cleaning. It was awaiting evidence from its estates team as to whether any window cleaning was missed. It would credit residents with any missed cleaning, in the next final service charge statement.
4. Its service charge team were comparing the previous year’s costs with the current year and would provide an update by 23 September 2024.
5. It increased its offer of compensation to a total of £155.

After the Internal Complaints Procedure

The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 and 19 September 2024 with information regarding its service charges and increases.
The resident contacted this Service in October 2024. She said she has not heard from the property manager regarding arranging an independent witness. She said the ASB was continuing, and the noise app did not accurately record the bass sound. Further she said, the neighbours still had the BBQ on the balcony.
This Service spoke to the resident again on 15 May 2025. She said the ASB was continuing, the BBQ was still in place and the landlord had not done anything to resolve the situation. She wanted the ASB issue to be resolved and for the BBQ to be removed due fire to safety concerns. She told us that she is putting the property on the market, due to the noise and ASB issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has said that the handling of this matter by the landlord has led to a deterioration in her health. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident’s distress, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, and the resident may wish to pursue this through the courts. We have, however, considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident has also complained about the level of and increase in service charges. Whilst we appreciate the resident’s frustration, this is not something that we are able to investigate. Determining the reasonableness of the level of service charge requires a binding decision from the court or tribunal service such as the First Tier Tribunal service. As this is not an outcome this Service can provide, we would suggest that the resident pursue the matter via the Leasehold Advisory Service, the details of which have been provided to her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

The signed lease agreement says residents must not do anything which causes nuisance, annoyance or disturbance to other residents, so they must not:
1. Play any music, TV, radio, loudspeaker or other noise which can be heard outside the premises between the hours of 11pm and 8am.
2. Leave entrance doors open. (This is to ensure that no noise is made in any part of the building, which may cause disturbance to other residents).
The landlord’s ASB policy uses the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of anti-social behaviour. This includes conduct that is capable of causing, nuisance, or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It considers ASB to include excessive noise and rowdy behaviour.
2. When dealing with ASB cases, it will complete a risk assessment to consider risks to the resident and it will take action if appropriate.
3. If the risk assessment produces a high score, it will respond to the report within one working day. If it produces a medium or low score, it will respond to the resident’s report within 5 working days. It will tell the resident who is handling the ASB case and agree an action plan. After this, it will keep the resident updated every 15 working days.
4. It recognises that addressing ASB early can stop problems escalating and it may take informal action in some cases, which includes verbal and written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements and good neighbour agreements.
5. It will ask residents to keep a record of incidents by completing diary sheets or using the Noise App. It will also consider a range of options for noise cases.
The landlord also has a good neighbourhood management procedure in cases where it does not consider reports of nuisance to equate to ASB. It says it will tell residents when and why it is using the good neighbourhood management procedure. When using the good neighbourhood management procedure it may suggest:
1. Residents and neighbours signing a good neighbour agreement.
2. The landlord undertaking a home visit to help determine acceptable levels of noise between properties.
3. Exploring simple practical measures to reduce the impact of the noise.
It was appropriate that the landlord opened an ASB case when the resident first reported noise nuisance to the landlord on 1 February 2024. It did this on 6 February 2024 and wrote to the resident with proposed actions. It also wrote to the neighbour to raise the noise concerns. It further suggested the resident contact the council’s Environmental Health noise team, which was reasonable, as they have further noise enforcement powers and additional noise recording equipment. This is in line with its policy and a reasonable response within its published timescales.
However, there is no evidence on file that the landlord conducted a risk assessment with the resident and there is no action plan associated with the ASB case on file. Strong record keeping is a prerequisite to providing a good housing management service and this is a failing on the part of the landlord.
Further, on 6 February 2024, the landlord told the resident that it would be in touch within a week but it did not contact the resident, despite her attempts to receive updates on the case, and her further reports of noise nuisance. This poor communication caused the resident distress and frustration and impacted on the enjoyment of her home. This is particularly pertinent, as the resident had advised the landlord that the noise nuisance was affecting her mental health. The lack of response was not resident focussed and caused the resident distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The landlord did not contact the resident again until 20 May 2024, which was over 3 months later and an unreasonable delay and contrary to its policy, which states it will update residents every 15 working days. Further, once the resident responded to this contact, the landlord neither acknowledged this communication, nor did it respond to follow up on the further noise reports. This is a further failing, which caused the resident additional distress and frustration and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Although it was reasonable that it wrote to all residents of the block on 24 June 2024; to ask them to be “mindful of noise levels” at antisocial hours, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to remind residents of the obligations of their lease. In line with its policy, the landlord should have contacted the resident and drafted an action plan to address the issues reported. This further lack of communication caused the resident distress, and further time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The landlord did not provide an action plan regarding the ASB until its stage 1 complaint response of 21 August 2024, 6 months after the resident reported the ASB. This is an unreasonable delay, which impacted on the enjoyment of the resident’s home. Also, it did not manage the resident’s expectations and left the resident with no knowledge of what actions would be taken, by whom and when.
The landlord’s property manager called and wrote to the resident’s next-door neighbour on 4 September 2024. They reminded the neighbour of the obligations of the lease regarding noise nuisance. They told him not to play loud music or any other noise that would cause nuisance to the neighbours, particularly between the hours of 11pm and 8am. This was a reasonable response, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the neighbour sooner. The noise was significantly impacting on the enjoyment of the resident’s home.
The Ombudsman’s ‘Spotlight on Noise’ report recognises that noise transference can have a significant impact on people’s lives. It recommends landlords explore all avenues to lessen noise transference and its impact. In its complaint response of 24 August 2024, the landlord told the resident that it needed more evidence to take further action. This was appropriate, as landlords need a significant amount of evidence to take any enforcement action. However, when it told the resident that the noise was not significant enough to be ASB, it did not consider any actions through its good neighbourhood management procedure. It did not consider a good neighbour agreement, mediation or any noise transference mitigation. This is a failing and caused the resident distress and inconvenience and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Although the landlord did offer to discuss other options such as arranging a witness service to try and evidence the noise, it did not offer this until its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. Further, the resident advises that the landlord has not yet contacted her to do this, over 15 months after she reported the ASB. If this is the case, this is an unreasonable delay, which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. Further, the noise continues to have a significant impact on the enjoyment of her home, and the resident has advised this Service that she is selling her home, as the landlord has not made any steps to address the issue.
In summary, the landlord did not abide by its policies. It did not make an action plan with the resident in a timely manner and did not follow up on the action plan points. It failed to adequately communicate with her throughout the noise reports, and it did not do enough to mitigate the noise disturbance. There is no evidence that it attended the neighbour’s property or that it considered options to minimise the noise transference.
Given the failings identified, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £800 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident. This is made up of £600 for distress and inconvenience caused and £200 for time and trouble in pursuing the noise nuisance issues. This order is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where there has been a failure which has a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of fire safety

The landlord’s fire safety information on its website says that residents are not permitted to have BBQ’s on balconies or near any building, due to fire risks.
It was appropriate that the landlord called and wrote to the resident’s neighbour on 4 September 2024, after her reports of 20 August 2024, of a BBQ on their balcony. It told the neighbour to remove the BBQ and highlighted the fire risks. This is in line with its fire safety information.
It also contacted the resident to let her know that it would be taking action. It was further reasonable that in its stage 2 response, it told the resident that it could not share what action it was taking, due to GDPR. It raised the resident’s expectations that it was going to take appropriate action and then did not do so.
There is no record of the landlord taking any further action, after its letter to the neighbour of 4 September 2024, and as of 15 May 2025, the resident advised that the BBQ remained on the balcony. This was 9 months after the resident reported the issue. This is a failing on the part of the landlord and caused the resident distress and anxiety. This is particularly pertinent as fire safety is a major concern after events in housing blocks in recent years. Further, the landlord prohibits the use of BBQ’s on balconies and there is no evidence that it did enough to mitigate the fire risks.
As there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action about the BBQ, and due to the associated fire risks, a finding of maladministration is made, along with orders for redress. We have made an order for £400 compensation. This is for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of action in enforcing its fire regulations. This order is in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord has failed to take appropriate action and has failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with window cleaning

It was reasonable that the landlord’s window cleaning contractor wrote to all residents on 13 June 2024 and 19 July 2024 to ask them to clear their balconies to provide access for cleaning. It made it clear that any obstructions would limit cleaning to residences and neighbouring flats. This is because the window cleaners would access all properties via balcony privacy screens.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2024, to say that the windows had not been cleaned for a long time, and she was “fed up” of paying high service charges for a service she did not receive. She asked when the cleaning would be done, and the landlord responded on the same day. It was appropriate that it said the cleaners had attended but could not access all the properties, as some flats were leaving belongings on the balcony. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that the resident’s flat was one of the properties that was not cleaned, due to blockages on adjoining balconies.
The landlord liaised with its cleaning contractors to find out what went wrong, and this was an appropriate response. However, it did not apologise to the resident about the fact that her own windows had not been cleaned. In its stage 2 response, it reiterated its advice to clear her balcony of belongings before a clean, even though she had told the landlord that she had already done this. She had made it clear to the landlord that her windows had not been cleaned, due to other residents not providing satisfactory access. The landlord’s response did not address the resident’s concerns and is not resident focussed. This caused her frustration and time and trouble. It also impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will apologise and put things right when there has been a service failing. It offers £20 for failed or missed appointments and may consider discretionary payments for the overall impact on the resident. Its discretionary payments range from £1 to over £700.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that she was not being provided with a service, due to other residents not moving their belongings and this is not resident focussed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this and apologise for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident. Further, it would have been appropriate to consider offering a discretionary payment for the impact on the resident.
In summary, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns and did not apologise for her time and trouble and inconvenience. As such a finding of service failure has been made. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation. This is for time and trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. This order is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, where there is a failure which has adversely affected the resident but there has been no permanent impact.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord and this Service define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made.
The landlord’s complaints policy, in line with this Service’s complaint handling code (The Code) states:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days.
2. It will send a full written response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. If it needs more time, it will contact the resident to agree an extension.
3. If it needs to extend beyond a further 10 days, it must get agreement from the resident.
There is no dispute that there were severe delays to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The landlord has apologised for this and offered £50 compensation. However, it did not go far enough. Its delays were repeated and protracted and caused the resident significant frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Further, the resident initially tried to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance and ASB on 29 March 2023. She clearly stated she wanted to make “an official complaint” about the landlord “ignoring the issue.” The landlord responded that it could not raise a complaint, as this was “regarding the actions of a tenant.” This is contrary to its policy and to this Service’s complaint handling code. The resident was attempting to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the situation, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise it on this date. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 July 2024. It did not provide a full response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 21 August 2024. Although it had asked permission to extend, the resident had refused on the last occasion. The landlord asked the resident to extend its stage 1 response twice and this was not reasonable as it protracted the substantive issue being resolved. Further, the landlord had undertaken to provide a response by 12 August 2024 and did not provide its stage 1 response until 21 August 2024. In total, this totalled 37 working days and was an unreasonable delay. The delays caused the resident distress and frustration and time and trouble in pursuing the issue.
Further, the delays in the stage 1 response meant that the resident could not escalate to a stage 2 complaint and ultimately impacted on her ability to ask this Service to investigate sooner. This is because we cannot investigate complaints until they have completed the landlord’s internals complaints process. This caused the resident further frustration and impacted on the enjoyment of her home, as the substantive issue was not addressed in a timely manner.
Further, in its stage 2 complaint response of 16 September 2024, the landlord agreed to contact the resident to arrange an independent witness and the resident says that as at 15 May 2025, it had not done so. This caused the resident distress and continued to impact on the enjoyment of her home.
Also, it did not identify any lessons learned from the resident’s complaint which is a failing on the part of the landlord and not in line with this Service’s complaint handling code.
In summary, although the landlord apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered the resident £50 compensation, it did not go far enough. The actions remain outstanding 8 months after the landlord’s final complaint response and this is unreasonable.
Due to the failings identified above, we have found maladministration. An order for £200 has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident. This is £150 for the complaint handling failures, and £50 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident. This order is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for instances where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of fire safety concerns.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with window cleaning in the block.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Complete a risk assessment with the resident. (This is to determine the severity of the ongoing noise nuisance and ASB and the impact on the resident).
3. Contact the resident to complete an updated action plan to include: arranging an independent witness, considering mediation, good neighbour agreements and noise transference mitigation (in line with its ASB and neighbourhood management procedures).
4. Contact the resident to confirm if the BBQ is still on the neighbour’s balcony and agree actions to resolve this. Explain its decision to the resident should it not take steps to remove the BBQ.
5. Arrange training to all relevant staff to ensure that they follow their ASB policy, complaints policy and fire safety guidelines.
6. Pay the resident £1450 in compensation. This should be paid into her bank account and not offset against any arrears (if applicable) This replaces the sums previously offered and is made up as follows:
  1. £800 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the noise nuisance and ASB issue.
  2. £400 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience in pursuing the fire safety issue.
  3. £50 for time and trouble and inconvenience in pursuing issues with window cleaning in the block.
  4. £200 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders.