From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Southern Housing (202420193)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420193

Southern Housing

23 April 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since April 2023. The property is a 1 bedroom flat, which is located within a retirement housing scheme. The landlord is a housing association. It said that the resident has several medical conditions including hypertension.
  2. The resident reported ASB from one of her neighbours. For the purpose of clarity the alleged perpetrator, who is also a tenant of the landlord, will be referred to as “the neighbour” in this report. The resident informed the landlord that the neighbour was asking other residents for money, harassing and intimating them. She said that the neighbour stole from a vulnerable resident and allegedly bought drugs in the scheme car park. She explained that several residents reported the issues to the landlord.
  3. On 19 October 2022 she made a formal complaint to the landlord on behalf of other residents about the neighbour’s behaviour. While she was the lead complainant, she made the complaint with 2 other residents. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 November 2022. The resident said she did not receive its response and raised the issue with this service as a complaint.
  4. On 8 November 2022, the resident reported that the neighbour had called her family “dirty gypsies”. She informed this service that members of the public had shared this with her son when he visited the local pub. On 19 November 2022 she reported an incident with the neighbour which happened on 8 days earlier. She said the neighbour approached her in the laundry room. She described how he had been verbally aggressive. She said he knew that she had reported his behaviour to the landlord a few days earlier. She explained that the landlord immediately spoke to the neighbour about his conduct and he admitted to the altercation. She also reported that her grandson saw the neighbour buying drugs in the car park. The landlord said it would review the CCTV and be in touch with her to investigate the incidents she had reported.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2024. Her complaint was about its handling of her ASB reports. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 13 March 2024 by emailing her to the email address it had on file for her.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 22 March 2024. It said that on 25 November 2022, it had written to the resident informing her it was investigating her ASB reports. However, it then closed the case in error and failed to update the resident. It reassured the resident that while it could not revisit the historical incident, it would investigate any new issues. It apologised for its failings and offered to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her.
  7. On 19 June 2023 then resident reported an incident with her neighbour staring into her window late that evening, which she found intimidating. She requested a call back from the landlord to discuss the incident.
  8. On 4 July 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said she was unhappy with the way it had handled her October 2022 complaint. On 9 July 2024 she reiterated that it had not investigated her ASB reports and requested that it did. She said she wanted to make a new complaint. Between 11 July 2024 and 15 July 2024, the landlord clarified that it would investigate her complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process. It also confirmed the complaints it planned to investigate and asked the resident if she needed any reasonable adjustments.
  9. On 8 August 2024 the landlord informed the resident it would need longer to investigate her complaint and it would respond by 6 September 2024. The landlord issues its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2024 and said:
    1. It explained that although it had investigated and responded to the complaint she made in October 2022, it had incorrectly logged her complaint. It recognised that this caused some confusion to the resident who believed it had deleted her complaint and offered to pay her £50 compensation to reflect the inconvenience this caused her.
    2. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 about its handling of the ASB reports from 2022. It said that the resident had reported another incident with the neighbour in June 2023. It recognised that although the resident requested a call back to discuss what happened, it had not followed up and apologised for this. It said that it had no record of further incidents after that date. It also confirmed that it had completed the actions it agreed to do in its stage 1 response.
    3. It acknowledged the resident was unhappy with the landlord issuing a stage 2 response instead of raising a new complaint. It clarified that its stage 1 response dated 22 March 2024, was in response to the complaint she raised on 5 March 2024. It explained that its stage 2 response was an escalation to the stage 1 complaint. It did not uphold this element of her complaint.
    4. It reiterated the offer of £50 compensation it made in its stage 1 response in relation to its handling of her ASB reports.
  10. The resident informed this service that she does not believe the landlord has followed a fair process by grouping some of her complaints together, instead of providing her with separate responses. She said that it had failed to act on ASB reports from residents and had not resolved the ASB issues from the neighbour. The resident explained that she has support with reading and writing and because of this it was likely that she had 2 different emails addresses, which were set up by friends.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. On 19 October 2022 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the neighbour’s behaviour towards other residents. While she was the lead complainant, she made the complaint with 2 other residents. The landlord said it responded to her complaint on 25 November 2022. We understand the resident said she did not receive its response and raised a complaint with this service about the landlord’s handling of her complaint. In keeping with the Scheme, we cannot consider this element of her complaint. This is because we may not consider complaints about concern matters raised by the resident on behalf of another without their authority.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. We understand that the landlord is not directly responsible for the ASB. However, it has a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014 to respond to ASB affecting its properties with a victim centred approach.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that on receipt of an ASB report, it will discuss what happened with the resident but will not disclose their details without their consent. It would then carry out a risk assessment to identify the risks to them, any vulnerability and support needs. It will agree an action plan with the resident, provide them with regular updates, inform them when closing the case and explain its reasons for closure.
  3. In December 2023, the landlord reviewed its ASB policy and said that going forward, it would assess whether it would investigate an ASB report under its ASB policy or its good neighbourhood policy. It also said that it would share its decision with the resident. It explained that when investigating a report under either policy, it would follow the same process. However, it would only carry out a risk assessment for ASB reports investigated under its ASB policy.
  4. In November 2022 the resident made 2 ASB reports about the neighbour. She reported him calling her family “dirty gypsies” and being verbally aggressive towards her during an altercation in the laundry room.
  5. In November 2022, the landlord spoke to the neighbour about his conduct toward the resident. It did not show it had sought the resident’s consent prior to speaking to the neighbour about his conduct towards her. It should have discussed this and agreed an action plan with her before approaching the neighbour about his conduct. She could have then made an informed choice and agreed a way forward with the landlord on how to handle the matter. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Its failings made the resident feel unsafe because she had thought her reports would be kept confidential.
  6. In addition, the landlord’s ASB policy says that on receipt of an ASB report, it would carry out a risk assessment. The purpose of such assessment is to understand the resident’s vulnerability and assess the impact the ASB may have. Based on the assessment, the landlord is then expected to put suitable measures in place to support the resident and mitigate the risks, if needed. In this case, the landlord did not show that in November 2022, it had assessed the potential risks to the resident in keeping with its ASB policy. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to understand the impact the ASB had on her. It would have also reassured her it was considering her welfare.
  7. Furthermore, it is recognised that actions plans and their reviews are useful tools in managing ASB cases. They help manage resident’s expectations, clarify roles and responsibilities and monitor progress. There is no evidence to show that in November 2022, the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident, provided her with updates on its actions, other agencies actions or monitored progress. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its ASB policy.
  8. We understand that on 21 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord for an update on her ASB case. The landlord met with her and reviewed her case. It explained that in November 2022, it had failed to appropriately handle her ASB reports and had closed her case in error. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, its failings to handle her ASB reports in keeping with its policies caused the resident inconvenience as she had to raise the matter as a complaint.
  9. We recognise that in November 2022, the landlord discussed the ASB reported by the resident with the neighbour. We also understand that the resident had made no additional ASB reports between November 2022 and February 2023. We understand the resident would have been disappointed that in February 2023 and in its complaint responses, the landlord said that it could not revisit her historical ASB reports. However, due to the length of time that had passed without any further reports, it was reasonable for the landlord not to reopen an investigation into what appeared to have been resolved.
  10. In June 2023, the resident reported the neighbour staring into her windows. She requested a call back from the landlord and from its own admission, it had failed to act on her request. It did not show it discussed the issues with her or agreed and action plan. This was unreasonable from the landlord. Its failings to call her back and investigate her report in June 2023, further eroded her trust in the landlord.
  11. We recognise that the nature and frequency of the ASB reported by the resident, may not have met the threshold for an ASB investigation and may have been managed under the landlord’s good neighbourhood procedure. However, the landlord did not show that in June 2023, it had assessed her reports or clearly explained to her whether it would investigate the matters under its ASB policy or its good neighbourhood policy. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its policies.
  12. We understand the landlord also received reports from other residents about the neighbour’s conduct. While we cannot share third party data, we are satisfied the landlord investigated, liaised with the police and taken legal advice in relation to the neighbour’s conduct. While this may have been in relation to ASB reported by other residents, in those documents, the landlord also mentioned behaviours by the neighbour, which the resident had described. We acknowledge that the resident has requested for the landlord to share details of its wider investigations into the neighbour. However, we agree with the landlord that to respect other residents’ data, it would be inappropriate for it to do this.
  13. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It did not assess the resident’s reports, agree action plans with her, investigate the matters, provide her with regular updates or informed her when it closed the case. The landlord failed to consider the resident’s ASB reports in keeping with its ASB policy and its good neighbourhood policy.
  14. We understand the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord for not appropriately investigate her ASB reports in 2022 and 2023. The landlord said that the resident has made no reports about experiencing ASB from the neighbour since June 2023. Therefore, we are not making on order for the landlord to investigate the historical reports because of the time that has passed since the incidents. However, we would encourage the resident to report any new incidents to the landlord.
  15. We understand that the resident may have been frustrated with what she may perceive as the landlord’s reluctance to pursue enforcement action against the neighbour. Where legal action could result in the loss of a person’s home or liberty, a court will need to be satisfied that it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for an order to be made. What is proportionate and reasonable will depend on the evidence presented and the nature of the ASB. The court will consider the personal circumstances of the parties involved, including vulnerability, the nature of the ASB, its frequency and its impact. Only a court can make that decision. We understand the resident is seeking for the neighbour “to be removed”, however it is not in our remit to make such an order.
  16. During the ICP the landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised to the resident. It also offered to pay £50 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience this caused her. It also shared the actions it took to prevent repeating its mistakes. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident, it is our opinion that its offer is too low and does not reflect the impact its failings had on her.
  17. In accordance with our remedies guidance, which is published on our website, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused to her. This also reflects the accumulative impact of its failings to investigate her ASB reports in keeping with its ASB policy. This is inclusive of the offer made by the landlord during the ICP.

The associated complaint

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. In keeping with the Code, the landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It states that it will acknowledge residents’ complaints within 5 working days, respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. It also states that if its needs longer to respond, it will contact the resident to explain the reasons for the delay and provide a new date to respond to the resident’s complaint. Additionally, it explains that it would consider a request to escalate a complaint to stage 2 within 20 working days of issuing its stage 1 response. However, it would use its discretion and may consider requests after this time.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 5 March 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it 6 days later. The evidence shows that it responded to her complaint within its published timeframe and in keeping with the Code. This was reasonable from the landlord.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2024, and reiterated she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB reports and wanted to raise a new complaint. The evidence shows that the landlord acknowledged her complaint 2 days later, which was reasonable and in keeping with its policy and the Code.
  4. We understand that the resident questioned whether the landlord’s stage 1 response should be dated March 2023, instead of March 2024. In July 2024, the landlord confirmed the stage 1 response she received on 22 March 2024, was correctly dated and in response to the complaint she made on 5 March 2024. This was reasonable from the landlord.
  5. We recognise that in July 2024, the resident questioned the landlord’s reasons for opening a stage 2 complaint instead of a new stage 1. The landlord explained to the resident that in July 2024, she said she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB reports. It elaborated that because it had responded to this element of her complaint in March 2024, it considered her new communications were an escalation of her complaint. We understand the resident may not be familiar with the landlord’s complaint policy or the Code.
  6. However, in this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to her complaint as a stage 2 complaint, instead of opening a new complaint. This prevented delaying her access to this service. The landlord also applied its discretion by accepting a stage 2 complaint more than 20 days after it issued the stage 1 response. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, who acted in keeping with its complaints policy and the Code.
  7. The resident informed this service that she could not read and write and the landlord was aware of this. It said that it has no record of this on its housing management system. As an impartial service we make decision based on evidence. While we do not disbelieve the resident, without evidence that she had shared this with the landlord, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord to consider this.
  8. Additionally, the evidence shows that on 15 July 2024, when responding to an email from the resident, it asked her whether she required any reasonable adjustments. We did not see evidence that the resident responded to its query or requested reasonable adjustments. Therefore, we cannot determine there was a service failure by the landlord to consider the resident needs and adjust its handling of her complaint to meet her needs.
  9. On 8 August 2024, the landlord informed the resident it needed longer to respond to her complaint. It responded to her stage 2 complaint 8 working days later. This was reasonable from the landlord, its actions were in keeping with its complaint policy and the Code.
  10. After considering all the evidence of the case, we determine there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The evidence shows that since March 2024, it handled her complaint in keeping with its complaints policy and the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, we order the landlord to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect its failings in its handling of her ASB reports and the inconvenience this caused the resident. This is inclusive of its offer to pay £50 compensation during the ICP and it should deduct this if it has already paid it to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord discusses with the resident whether she requires reasonable adjustments because of her difficulties with reading and writing. If she does the landlord should agree the required adjustments with her and correctly update its housing management system to reflect this.