Southwark Council (202309807)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309807

Southwark Council

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) after matters had been to court in August 2021.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which began on 18 December 2017. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom maisonette on the fourth floor, which she has since left the property. The resident has mental health issues, which the landlord is aware of.
A court granted a 12-month injunction with a power of arrest against the resident’s neighbour on 7 October 2020 due to ASB. The terms of the injunction prohibited the neighbour from behaving in a certain way towards the resident.
The landlord returned to court on 2 August 2021 for breaches of the injunction. The court ordered that the matter be listed for a hearing. The injunction expired on 7 October 2021. The landlord returned to court for a committal hearing against the neighbour on 28 October 2021, but this was unsuccessful.
On 5 November 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about ASB, the key points were as follows:
1. Issues dated back to 2019.
2. Officers from Southwark Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (SASBU) and/or Area Housing Management (AHM) had failed to take appropriate action after matters had been to court in August 2021.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 November 2021 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 17 December 2021, the key points were as follows:
1. The government placed a hold on housing litigation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which had a detrimental impact on all pending litigating matters.
2. The landlord considered all options to prevent homelessness and reduce the unreasonable behaviour by the resident’s neighbour. It said it had taken steps to support the resident, including multi-agency involvement and legal action.
The resident moved house in August 2022.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 21 April 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. Harassment had increased since the failed court case, with continuous loud banging at all hours preventing her from sleeping.
2. She was too scared to leave the property for fear of being attacked.
3. The number of people staying with her neighbour had resulted in increased banging and intimidation.
4. Drug taking had increased at her neighbour’s property, with a constant smell of cannabis resulting in the resident using air fresheners in every room.
5. ASB had impacted her physical and mental health.
6. She wanted the landlord to raise another court case, as well as rehouse her and pay her moving costs. She also wanted compensation for the impact of ASB on her mental health and reimbursement of rent paid from the start of harassment in June 2019.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 21 April 2023, and acknowledged the residents ill health had prevented her from escalating the complaint sooner. It issued a stage 2 response on 16 June 2023, the key points were as follows:
1. The resident rejected mediation with her neighbour in February 2022.
2. It empathised with the resident’s situation and said no one should feel unsafe in their home.
3. It was continuing to manage her neighbour to minimise harm and disruption caused in the locality, with her neighbour classed as vulnerable.
4. It disagreed that its SASBU and AHM had not done all within their powers to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
5. The resident applied for rehousing in March 2022, which it awarded ‘exceptional/emergency priority’ to allow her to bid on properties with an extra bedroom to try to achieve a move sooner. It told the resident on 27 July 2022 that she was the first bidder on a property, which she accepted and moved into on 14 August 2022. It said this was the best alternative due to being unable to move her neighbour.
6. It was unclear what more it could have done to provide a suitable outcome in a shorter timescale, as it could take several months for a suitable property to become available and there was a shortage of housing.
7. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as there was nothing further it could do.
8. The resident could contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 June 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 23 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of reports from 2 August 2021, which is when it returned to court to file for breaches of an injunction against the resident’s neighbour. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the reported ASB itself, to apportion blame or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. Rather, it is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and subsequent complaint with reference to its policies as well as our own assessment of what is fair, given the circumstances of the case.
The resident has raised concerns about the impact of the reported issues on her physical and mental health and well-being. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

The ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 sets out the need for a landlord to put victims at the heart of its response to ASB. When considering the response to a complaint of ASB, a landlord must consider the effect that the behaviour in question is having on the life of the victim.
The government’s guidance, ‘Putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’, says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm to the victim.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will adopt a victim-centred approach that protects and supports residents. It says it will offer a range of interventions and adopt a multi-agency approach in most cases.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from August 2021 onwards

When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, it is our role to assess whether it has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will work with residents to explain ASB and its approach, so they understand what they can expect from it and what it expects from them. It says it will be clear about the likely outcomes it can achieve and relevant timescales. The landlord will assess the level of harm caused and work with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB. It adds that any action will be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB.
Between returning to court on 2 August 2021 and the committal hearing on 28 October 2021, there is no evidence of ASB reported to the landlord. However, it emailed the police on 16 October 2021. The landlord has not provided the attachment it sent with this email, so we are not aware of its content. This indicates an issue with its record keeping.
In response, the police asked the landlord to arrange for the resident to record noise to support reports of ASB before it would consider arresting her neighbour. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action until 22 November 2021, which is when it made an internal request to provide the resident with audio recording equipment. This was inappropriate because the delay prevented the resident from obtaining evidence of noise to support any reports of ASB during this time.
The committal hearing was unsuccessful and, therefore, there was no longer an injunction in place. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this to the landlord on 2 November 2021 before raising a formal complaint on 5 November 2021.
The landlord told the resident on 15 November 2021 that, due to legal technicalities argued by its barrister, the judge disagreed on a point of law and terminated proceedings. We are unable to make a determination on the hearing as we have no jurisdiction over court matters.
The landlord said its ASB unit was considering alternative options to try to achieve a positive outcome for the resident. It advised the resident to contact the police about any criminal matters, which was reasonable. The landlord also invited the resident to contact it for further updates. However, its ASB policy says it will keep victims updated on a weekly or as agreed basis. Therefore, it was unreasonable to put the onus on the resident.
The landlord’s records indicate that its legal team, barrister and a resident services officer met to review the court’s decision on 22 November 2021, but it has not provided any details of what it discussed. This further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response referred to correspondence dated 9 December 2021 and a meeting with the resident on 16 December 2021, but it has not provided any evidence of these. This, again, indicates an issue with its record keeping. Although the landlord’s response referenced actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, it would have been appropriate to explain the next steps it would take and how it might support the resident going forwards.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord noted that the resident had provided noise recordings of 3 incidents of banging on 1 December 2021. It is unclear when the landlord received the recordings, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. Its lack of response to the resident after listening to the recordings was not in line with its ASB policy and highlighted a disregard for her situation.
The landlord told the resident’s councillor on 14 January 2022 that it was trying to find a solution to the ASB that protected and supported the resident without the need for possession proceedings or any enforcement action. It said it would meet the resident’s neighbour to put her on notice and clarify the steps and possible sanctions it would take if it continued to receive complaints about her behaviour. It also said it was considering a 2-bedroom transfer that the councillor had requested for the resident during a previous discussion, which was appropriate. However, the landlord has not provided the email it initially received from the councillor, nor details of its discussion, which, again, indicates issues with its record keeping.
Having received a complaint about the neighbour from another resident on 23 January 2022, the landlord reached out to that resident to seek an update on her situation. It also contacted the police to discuss the possibility of a closure order on the property. This was appropriately in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure to work with partner agencies and consider all available options.
In February 2022, the landlord held a multi-agency meeting and considered the possibility of the resident moving house. In line with its ASB policy it also offered the resident mediation, which she declined. The landlord informed the councillor that it was continuing to work with the police and her neighbour, which was appropriate. However, it also said the matter was subject to legal proceedings, but it has not provided any evidence of this, which further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
At the end of March 2022, the resident submitted a housing application to the landlord. It was not until 16 May 2022 that the landlord confirmed she could bid on 2-bedroom properties for a band 1 emergency move. While its housing allocation policy does not provide a timeframe for assessing applications, its delay of 6 weeks to contact the resident was unreasonable.
The landlord said it could not move the resident’s neighbour due to her being vulnerable. It also explained in its stage 2 response that it had a shortage of housing stock. Therefore, allowing the resident to apply for properties with an additional bedroom and emergency priority increased the chance of her moving away from the reported ASB sooner, so this no longer impacted her.
The landlord liaised with other residents in April 2022 to obtain witness statements. This was an appropriate method of gathering evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB caused by her neighbour.
On 12 May 2022, the resident told the landlord that her neighbour had threatened to kill her and that she had reported this to the police. The resident said she was sleeping with a knife by her side. On 16 May 2022, the resident told the landlord that harassment from her neighbour had increased. She said she was scared that her neighbour and associates would break into her property.
It is good practice for a landlord to assess the risk of harm to the victim, and any potential vulnerabilities. The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. A risk assessment helps identify the effect that the reported ASB is having on the victim, particularly if repeated incidents are having an increasing effect on their mental and/or physical well-being. A continuous and organised risk assessment will help to identify cases that are causing, or could result in, serious harm to the victim, either as a one-off incident or as part of a targeted and persistent campaign of ASB.
Given the threat and that the resident was scared, we would have expected the landlord to complete a risk assessment and consider whether it needed to take any further action to support her. However, the records fail to show that the landlord completed risk assessments or agreed an action plan with the resident in response to the reports of ASB made from August 2021 onwards. This was not in accordance with its policy and is a failing in its handling of the matter. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the police to check what it was doing regarding the threat made to the resident. However, there is no evidence that it did this, which was not appropriate.
It was not until 7 July 2022 that the landlord made a referral for emergency temporary accommodation while the resident waited for a suitable property to become available. Although this was a positive response, this was almost 2 months after the resident raised concerns about her safety and mental well-being, which was not reasonable in the circumstances. There is also no evidence that the landlord pursued the referral, which is a failing. The delay in making the referral and failure to follow this up likely caused the resident to experience further distress.
The resident told the landlord on 2 August 2023 that her kitchen window had been smashed. She said the police advised her not to return to the property, which she still lived at. The landlord noted that the resident had signed up for another property and would be moving 2 days later. Although it made an internal request to look at the crime report to check if it could take any action, there is no evidence that it considered providing emergency accommodation to move the resident away from the situation. This was not appropriate.
When the resident said the police advised her not to return to the property, the landlord should have followed this up. Had the police confirmed this to be the case, we would have expected the landlord to have considered this and respond accordingly. Its lack of regard for her safety and well–being was contrary to its ASB policy that it would be victim led.
The police told the landlord on 3 August 2023 that it suspected the resident’s neighbour had smashed the window with a hammer but that any arrest depended on the resident providing a statement and CCTV footage. The police said it had taken the resident to her new address to remove the risk of further conflict, but it is unclear whether this was to temporary accommodation provided by the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord continued to liaise with the police or take any further action, which, again, was not appropriate.
The landlord closed the ASB case upon the resident moving address in August 2022. It has not provided any details regarding the house move, which, again, indicates an issue with its record keeping. Its guidance says it should contact the victim when it is ready to close an ASB case to allow them to assess how they feel it handled their case. It should also send a closure letter. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did this. These are failings, which denied the resident the opportunity to feedback any concerns or understand why the landlord closed the case.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s response was at times in line with its ASB policy. However, as set out above, there were failures. It is concerning that these included a lack of consideration for the resident’s safety and well-being which compounded her distress. We therefore consider that the failings identified represent maladministration.
Although we have been able to make a determination using the information available, it is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. During a meeting with the landlord in May 2024, it said it was undertaking a project to improve its information management and record keeping. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order on this matter.

Complaint handling

The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 5 November 2021.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 3 working days and issued a stage 1 response within 15 working days.
The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. It acknowledged the complaint on 5 November 2021, which was in line with the timeframe specified in its complaints policy. It then issued a stage 1 response on 17 December 2021. This was 15 working days late and likely caused the resident some distress.
The landlord’s response provided dates of events regarding legal action, which contained errors. The inaccuracy of dates is a failing, which likely caused the resident confusion.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 21 April 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have issued a stage 2 response within 25 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 21 April 2023. It accepted that ill health had prevented the resident from escalating her complaint sooner and said the investigator assigned to the case should contact her. It also said there would be a delay due to an increase in contact from residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not normally consider a complaint that is made more than 12 months after the individual first became aware of the issue. Given the circumstances, it was reasonable of the landlord to accept the request in this instance. It also acted appropriately to manage the resident’s expectations regarding response times.
However, the landlord then issued a stage 2 response on 16 June 2023 without contacting the resident. Its response was 12 working days late. Although the resident had moved house and was no longer subject to ongoing instances of ASB, we acknowledge that the further delay and failure to contact the resident likely caused some distress.
We consider that the landlord’s delayed complaint responses and lack of contact represent service failure and have made an order for remedy below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB from August 2021 onwards.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
2. Pay compensation totalling £650, comprised as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress caused to the resident by its failures regarding its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. £50 for its complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a review of its failings regarding risk assessments to identify what went wrong and what it will do differently. It should set out its findings and outcomes of the review in a report to us.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.