Southern Housing (202321426)

Background

1. The resident lived in the property which was a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The resident’s daughter has autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of the ASB reports

4. It is reasonable to consider that the resident’s initial reluctance for the landlord to act on specific reports made would have limited its ability to address the reports of ASB. However, the landlord did identify some steps it could take to address the ASB and it was not appropriate that it did not carry out those actions within a timely manner. Its communication at times was poor and it did not do enough to consider the risks to the resident.

The handling of the complaint

5. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its policies and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). We have identified some learning around the landlord’s use of language, however, this would not amount to a service failure.

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. There is a history of the resident reporting ASB dating back to 2015. However, in its complaint response the landlord outlined why it would only investigate reports made 6 months prior to the formal complaint. This was in line with its policy and the Scheme at the time. While this timeframe has since changed to 12 months, we will only consider events 6 months prior to the formal complaint in the interests of fairness.
7. The landlord’s actions following the initial report were reasonable. It outlined the difficulties with taking action if the resident did not want it to approach the neighbour. It showed a proactive approach by agreeing to do an unannounced visit to the neighbour to see if there was anything it could investigate and to liaise with the police. We have seen evidence of the landlord carrying out the actions agreed. This shows the landlord sought to make the resident feel supported, while respectful of her desire for it to not approach the neighbour about her specific concerns.
8. Following further reports from the resident, the landlord has shown that it worked in partnership with other agencies such as the police and social services to aim to tackle the ASB from the neighbours. The notes from the meetings show the landlord appropriately raised concerns and noted the actions it was to take from the meetings.
9. Following a multi-agency meeting on 23 October 2023 an action for the landlord was to ask the neighbour to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA). It said if that did not work then it would consider a NOSP. It was not appropriate that it did not ask the neighbour to sign the ABA until 23 February 2024, 4 months after. The delays likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience given that the situation was ongoing, if not getting worse. While the landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response, it would have been reasonable for it to have also done so in its stage 2 response, as it continued.
10. It is concerning that the landlord did not record any vulnerabilities in the household, despite the resident informing it of her daughter’s ASD. The resident repeatedly reported the impact on her family’s health and wellbeing, and she requested to move due to the threats received and concerns for their safety. The landlord has provided a copy of a risk assessment but it is not clear when it was completed. The notes on it say there was not enough information to complete the risk assessment matrix. The lack of risk assessment in this case was not appropriate and did not show how the landlord had considered the resident’s needs and safety.
11. In line with its policy, the landlord should have carried out a risk assessment to help understand the impact of the ASB on the household’s wellbeing. The policy outlines a number of actions it could have taken to support the resident. This includes adding additional security measures and signposting or referring to external support services. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would review all risk assessments with complainants. We have not seen evidence of it carrying out the review.
12. The landlord informed the resident that it did not have sufficient evidence to support a management move. A risk assessment would have helped to show how the landlord had considered the risks posed to the resident and why the resident did not meet the threshold for a management move. It is unclear how the landlord followed its policies to determine that the resident could not have a management move.
13. Following the neighbour’s refusal to sign the ABA in February 2024, the landlord did not evidence what next steps it would take to address the continued reports. The resident referred to the landlord’s solicitors stating that it should evict the neighbour, but we have not seen evidence of this. The landlord also offered mediation which the resident declined. The landlord had previously suggested it would consider a NOSP or a community protection notice if the neighbour refused to sign the ABA. It is a failing that it did not follow up on those actions until after the incident which took place in July 2024.
14. Following the stage 1 response, the landlord committed to calling the resident every 2 weeks. In her stage 2 escalation the resident stated that this did not always happen.  The records support this. There were also times when the landlord’s communication was poor and came across as dismissive. An example of this was following the reports made in December 2023 and the lack of follow up by the landlord. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged these failures in its stage 2 response and to have considered the impact on the resident.
15. Overall, we acknowledge the complexities of this case and the difficulties posed to the landlord in managing various stakeholders and the information provided. The landlord has shown good practice in some areas, but its risk management and delays in taking action were not appropriate and likely led to a significant impact on the resident. We do not consider that the landlord put things right in its complaint responses, and for those reasons we found maladministration.
16. Given the failures, the landlord must pay the resident £600 compensation. This includes the £80 it offered at stage 1, if it has not already been paid to the resident. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused. The amount is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration and where there was a significant impact on the resident.

17. Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s response at stage 1 was within 9 working days which was appropriate.
    2. The landlord took 5 working days to acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 escalation, which was also appropriate. It then took 30 working days to provide the stage 2 response. However, the landlord contacted the resident on 10 July 2024 to extend the date to respond. It provided the reasons for the delay and then took a further 10 working days to response. While the resident was disappointed with the delay, the landlord’s actions were in compliance with the Code.

Learning

18. The landlord should consider its use of language in its complaint handling. In both complaint responses, it refers to “complainants” rather than the resident. We are aware there were reports made by other residents. However, by not referring to the resident individually, its use of language appeared dismissive of her individual concerns and experience.
19. As an outcome to her complaint the resident has asked that we do something for the residents who may still be experiencing ASB where she previously lived. The Ombudsman is not able comment on the experience of other residents and they have the option to bring any complaints to us separately. The landlord should, however, consider the learning in this case and ensure it applies it to similar cases in future, where appropriate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The resident has suggested that some of its records were inaccurate and it did not do what it said it did. We do not dispute the resident’s account however we must rely on the information provided to us. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided the dates of when specific actions were carried out such as the issuing of the NOSP.
21. There was also reference to the landlord liaising with its legal department and receiving advice. We have not seen this documented within the records provided and therefore it was difficult to determine whether the landlord’s actions were proportionate in all the circumstances. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. 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.

Special investigation

22. In May 2024, the Ombudsman issued a special investigation report about the landlord. It highlighted similar concerns about its risk management and handling of ASB. The report made recommendations with the intention to improve the landlord’s service to residents. The landlord responded positively to the report and welcomed the learning from it. The Ombudsman is committed to working with the landlord to ensure it complies with the recommendations and embeds the changes into its practice. As such, we have not made any further orders or recommendations in relation to the failures in this report.