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 (202425624)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425624

Southern Housing

26 June 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of noise and antisocial behaviour from the property above, including the resident’s request for soundproofing and repairs.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom maisonette which initially was an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is in a converted building containing 2 properties, including another tenant above her. The tenancy started in July 2020. The landlord noted the resident has vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident said throughout her occupation she experienced noise from the property above. From April 2024, after a new tenant moved in, she reported to the landlord noise from the television, washing machine, banging, slamming doors, stomping, moving furniture, music playing, a “terrible chemical smell”, a dog barking, noise from laughter, noise from playing video games, squeaky floorboards, swearing, and shouting. The resident provided the landlord with noise recordings using the noise app.
  3. On 14 October 2024 the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of her noise reports since the new tenant had moved in. She also mentioned she felt discriminated against. On 28 October 2024 the resident complained about the landlord allegedly disclosing information to the council. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024 and said:
    1. It was sorry the resident felt unsupported and agreed to make reasonable adjustments, it asked how it could support the resident through its processes.
    2. The noise reports did not amount to antisocial behaviour (ASB) but “general transference living noise” so there was no open ASB case.
    3. It had discussed the reports which showed a “level of unacceptable noise” with the neighbour and given a warning to the neighbour.
    4. It had fitted acoustic flooring to the lounge and bedroom of the upstairs property and had worked with environmental health (council) over the reports. However, it had not offered mediation as this was not appropriate in this instance.
    5. It had maintained contact with the resident and found no evidence of discrimination.
    6. It did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 November 2024 as the resident felt that the noise amounted to ASB and was not just noise transference. She also referred to the neighbour in the property upstairs keeping their windows open. The resident also said that Action Fraud were looking into allegations her neighbour had “mirrored/cloned” her devices, and alleged her neighbour used illegal substances. The resident wanted sound proofing, the floorboards upstairs repaired, and the neighbour “dealt with correctly”. The resident reported to the landlord on 3 December 2024 that the neighbour had left out items in a communal area. On 16 December 2024 the resident reported to the landlord an attempted break in 2 days earlier by an unknown person who damaged her camera.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 December 2024 and said:
    1. It apologised it did not address all the points the resident raised in its stage 1 response.
    2. It would need more time to investigate the allegation of device cloning, and it agreed to update the resident accordingly.
    3. It considered the noise to be within a normal range for a family using the building, but as the building had been split into 2 properties it could not alter the property structurally.
    4. It had carpeted the upstairs property (apart from the kitchen and bathroom) and agreed to carpet the stairs to reduce the noise transference.
    5. The noise was not ASB as it was “daily living noise” which the neighbour was making as they had a different sleeping schedule.
    6. It could not open an ASB case as there was insufficient evidence that the neighbour made the noise intentionally or to cause deliberate harm to the resident.
    7. It was sorry the neighbour’s leaving windows open had affected her property temperature, but it could not stop the neighbour from opening them.
    8. It agreed to assess the situation regarding the items the resident said the neighbour had left in a communal space and the report of a smell.
    9. It was concerned over her mental health and offered to speak with the resident about options, including moving.
    10. It did not uphold the complaint.
  6. The resident told us that she felt the landlord had not handled her noise reports appropriately. She wants this Service to investigate the landlord’s handling of noise and ASB reports, to include allegations of discrimination and hacking of electronic devices, CCTV jamming, prowling, and mail tampering. The resident told this Service she experienced further incidents of noise and ASB since the complaint closed. The landlord told this Service that it moved the resident to alternative permanent accommodation on 23 June 2025. The resident has said she would like an apology and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. We acknowledge the resident raised concerns throughout the complaint process that the landlord allegedly discriminated against her in relation to its handling of her noise reports and in its dealings with her. Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act or otherwise. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation.
  2. In her communication with this Service the resident referred to claims that a neighbour had intercepted her mail. The resident first reported this to the landlord on 25 February 2025 which was after the landlord provided its final response. Therefore, this was not part of the resident’s initial complaint. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with the landlord to allow them an opportunity to investigate and resolve them before referring them to us. Therefore, we may not consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Consequently, we have not investigated this aspect of the complaint.
  3. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental effect on her health and well-being. She specifically referred to the situation causing her anxiety, depression, and insomnia. She also claimed that she had inhaled smells which may have affected her. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the course of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  4. The resident told the landlord she had experienced noise from the upstairs property from different tenants since 5 July 2020. However, we note the complaint that was considered under the landlord’s complaint process was specifically about a new tenant whose tenancy started in April 2024. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s noise and ASB reports relating to this tenant (referred to as neighbour) up until the landlord’s final response. This includes any commitments it made in this.

The landlord’s response to reports of noise and ASB

  1. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of noise from the property above. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the noise occurred or whether it amounted to ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and alleged ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states it does not consider “everyday living noise” as ASB. It adds that it if it decides a report is not ASB it will follow its good neighbourhood management protocol instead. The landlord’s ASB policy clearly gave it a choice on how to deal with the noise reports. It could either deal with them through its good neighbourhood management procedure or through its ASB policy, if it assessed the noise as ASB. The landlord’s ASB policy states it:
    1. Will take appropriate action to investigate ASB reports, including contacting witnesses and listening to noise app recordings.
    2. Can take informal action if it finds ASB on account of noise, like issuing warnings or asking a perpetrator to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement.
    3. Will work with other agencies to deal with ASB.
    4. Will complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with a resident where it deals with noise reports as ASB.
    5. May ask residents to enter a ‘good neighbour agreement’ if it deals with noise reports through its good neighbourhood management procedure.
    6. May take more formal action, like legal proceedings, if its attempts at informal action are unsuccessful.
  3. The resident first reported noise from the neighbour above on 15 April 2024. The resident told the landlord it had not acknowledged her noise reports until 20 May 2024. The landlord did not challenge this, although it noted on 7 June 2024 it had received 91 noise records. It would have been appropriate of the landlord to have acknowledged the reports earlier. The landlord concluded on 21 May 2024 that most of the noise in the reports was not ASB, but rather was noise associated with daily living. Its ASB policy allowed it to make this assessment. The landlord was aware on 28 May 2024 of an allegation of a “terrible chemical smell” coming from the property above which might be drug related. As the landlord’s ASB policy states dealing or taking drugs is ASB it is unclear why the landlord did not consider whether it would be appropriate to investigate this under its ASB policy.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 11 June 2024 that the noise involving someone instructing a dog in the early hours of the morning in the property above was unacceptable. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on the same day to explain this which was a reasonable step to take, in line with its ASB policy. It also sent a letter to the neighbour on 28 August 2024, in relation to a recording of loud music, explaining if it received further reports it would involve the council’s Environmental Health department (EH). This was in line with its ASB policy. The landlord updated the resident on the action it took in June 2024 and August 2024. However, we have not seen evidence that it completed a risk assessment or action plan with the resident which it needed to do where it accepted reports as ASB.
  5. The landlord contacted the council’s EH department on 24 September 2024 after receiving evidence of the neighbour playing loud music. This was reasonable as the landlord said it would do this, and partnership working is in line with its ASB policy. The EH department can help establish whether the noise amounts to a statutory noise nuisance. If they confirm the noise as amounting to a statutory noise nuisance then both the landlord and EH department may be able to take further action. The EH department told the landlord on 25 September 2024 it would take no further action. In line with the Ombudsman spotlight report on noise reports from October 2022, where noise is not regarded as a statutory noise nuisance it is still important for the landlord to handle reports seriously, sensitively, and proportionately.
  6. A landlord will be expected to clearly communicate with residents and manage their expectations of how it will handle a noise report, detailing potential actions to minimise the noise experienced, or the limitations it faced in doing so. The resident submitted at least 38 noise recordings between 11 September 2024 and 3 November 2024. The landlord concluded on 1 October 2024 that these were not ASB except for an incident of daytime music which was “too loud for comfort”. It also acknowledged an incident of very loud music playing until midnight on 22 September 2022. It told the resident it had written to the neighbour on 7 October 2024 and said it had warned them. This action was in line with its ASB policy.
  7. The landlord clearly explained to the resident in its final response why it did not regard the neighbour leaving their windows open as ASB. It also agreed to update the resident on its position regarding the allegations of device cloning and hacking. It did this on 28 January 2025 when it told the resident it would consider if there was any other action it could take if Action Fraud found any wrongdoing. It also explained on 28 January 2025 that the attempted break in was unrelated to ASB. These responses were reasonable as the lead agency in these matters was Action Fraud, and the police and the landlord agreed to consider further action if Action Fraud found any wrongdoing. The response also explained that the person who damaged the residents CCTV was not the neighbour or a visitor and so this was not an ASB matter for the landlord. The landlord also agreed to assess the items the resident said were blocking communal areas, which was reasonable.
  8.  The landlord acknowledged on 5 November 2024 it had heard evidence of the resident’s neighbour arguing in the early hours of the morning. The resident reported a washing machine on after 10pm on 12 November 2024, 17 November 2024, and 1 December 2024. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered requiring the neighbour to enter an acceptable behaviour agreement. This is because it told the resident it would do this on 28 August 2024 if it received further reports of nighttime noise. It would also have been reasonable to consider an ASB case in relation to the washing machine noise as it told the neighbour on 3 June 2024 it might consider the washing machine being on after 10pm ASB. The landlord needed to explain to the resident its reasons for not treating these as ASB.

Request for soundproofing

  1. The landlord assessed most of the noise reports did not meet the threshold to be ASB. This was on the basis that the reports related to the ordinary use of the upstairs property exacerbated by the lack of soundproofing. As the resident raised this issue multiple times, and the landlord accepted this as an issue, it was important for it to explore practical ways to reduce the effect of any noise. The landlord told the resident on 11 June 2024 it had previously fitted acoustic underlay in the property above. The resident told the landlord in June and October 2024 that the neighbour had removed this. While we are unable to establish if this was the case, we note that the resident told the landlord on 3 December 2024 that its presence made little difference. The resident wanted more substantial soundproofing. There was no obligation on the landlord to offer this unless the property was not built to the sound proofing standards in force at the time of construction. As there is no evidence of this, we cannot fault the landlord for not considering this further.
  2. However, the landlord was aware that the neighbour had no floor covering on the stairs and it agreed to fit this on 6 November 2024. The landlord completed this on 15 May 2025, this was 188 days later which was an unreasonable delay. The resident also reported hearing noise from the “squeaky floorboards” above her since 16 September 2024. Given it was aware of the resident’s noise transference concerns it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected these to see if there were any faults or whether it could take further action to reduce the noise from the floorboards. The landlord’s repair records show it completed a repair to these floorboards on 24 April 2025, this was 230 days later which was an unreasonable delay.

Discrimination

  1. The resident said the landlord had discriminated against her because she said it referenced her medical condition and because of its response to her reports of noise nuisance. She also said this was because the landlord did not consider her disabilities and offered her a management move. The landlord explained in its complaint responses it had found no evidence of discrimination, and it explained how it was happy for the resident to have third party support and offered to make reasonable adjustments. It was positive the landlord addressed these issues in the complaint process and acknowledged the resident may need additional support because of her vulnerabilities. The landlord offered a management move. This was reasonable, acknowledging the impact of the noise and the attempted break in and it demonstrated a resolution focussed approach. The resident felt the landlord had affected environmental health’s (EH) decision to close her case. However this agency was independent of the landlord, and the EH department said it explained its reason for closing the complaint to the resident.
  2. We have not found evidence of any derogatory reference to the resident’s health or a failure to address the resident’s concerns about discrimination. However, we note the landlord did not consider alternative ways to allow the resident to provide evidence. This was a failing as it was clear from the resident’s email to the landlord on 28 October 2024 that she had difficulties in using the noise app. The landlord also failed to explain to the resident its reasons for not contacting the witnesses she mentioned on 25 October 2025, when this would have been in line with its ASB policy. The resident told this service that the lack of explanation and communication at times made the resident feel the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously.
  3. In conclusion the landlord decided the noise reported did not meet the threshold to be considered in line with its ASB policy. It explained to the resident this was because the noise related to the upstairs use of their property and was not a deliberate nuisance. Given that the council’s EH department concluded there was no evidence of a statutory nuisance but an issue of soundproofing deficiency it was reasonable that the landlord took no formal action against the resident’s neighbour in respect to the noise transference. In instances where the landlord considered there was ASB it took action in line with its ASB policy and wrote to the neighbour on 11 June 2024, 28 August 2024, and 7 October 2024.
  4. However, we have found the following failures in the landlord’s handling of noise reports, including her request for sound proofing:
    1. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s noise reports between 15 April 2024 and 20 May 2024.
    2. It did not consider if it should open an ASB case and investigate after the resident said on 28 May 2024 there was an alleged drug related smell coming from the property upstairs.
    3. It did not complete a risk assessment or action plan following the noise reports in June 2024 and August 2024, which it accepted were ASB.
    4. It did not consider whether it should require the neighbour to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement when it said it would.
    5. It did not explain to the resident its reasons for not taking action in respect of the noise reports of a washing machine between 12 November 2024 and 1 December 2024.
    6. While the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about discrimination fairly it failed to consider if there were alternative ways to allow her to provide noise recordings or explain why it did not contact the witnesses she referred to.
    7. It took the landlord 188 days to fit a carpet upstairs (6 November 2024 to 15 May 2025) and 230 days to repair the upstairs floorboards (16 September 2024 to 24 April 2025).
  5. These failings amounted to maladministration. We have made an award of compensation to acknowledge the likely level of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £350. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for a payment of this amount where there has been maladministration which adversely effected the resident without any permanent effect. As the landlord has moved the resident, we have not made any orders regarding the landlord investigating any ongoing reports of ASB or noise transference.

Special investigation

  1. The Ombudsman published a report in May 2024 about the landlord following a special wider investigation in which it found multiple systemic failings that were impacting its residents. This included failing to act on reports and delaying applying its ASB policy, a failure to establish a clear action plan or complete a risk assessment in connection with ASB. The investigation also found faults with the landlord’s complaint handling, including failing to respond to parts of complaints. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes to put performance measures in place to make sure it completed timely and accurate risk assessments in all reports of ASB. We also recommended the landlord use the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning materials and consider the follow up report on our Spotlight report on noise complaints. In addition, we recommended the landlord reviews its complaint processes and training. As the landlord is involved in ongoing improvement work, we have therefore not made any orders which would duplicate the recommendations contained in the special wider investigation. Nevertheless, the landlord should consider if there are any lessons it can learn from this complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise and ASB from the property above.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident with an apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident directly £350 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the reports of noise and ASB from the property above.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.