Southwark Council (202406172)

Decision
Case ID	202406172
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southwark Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom property in a block of flats. They live in the property with their children. They complained that the landlord had not handled their reports of a banging noise and Antisocial Behaviour (ASB). They are registered as disabled, and both they and their children have medical conditions.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) and their request to be rehoused.
2. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and their request to be rehoused.
2. there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB and their request to be rehoused

We found that the landlord failed to appropriately manage the ASB case by not conducting ongoing risk assessments, especially when circumstances changed, and by not offering alternative evidence-gathering methods. It did not develop an action plan or explore other interventions after mediation was declined, nor did it signpost the resident to mental health support. Additionally, some ASB reports were not responded to within the timeframes set out in the landlord’s ASB policy, and there was a lack of oversight and record-keeping regarding the “water knock” test, which could have identified the source of noise in the property.
The landlord did not provide a response to the resident’s request for an emergency move in line with its housing allocation policy and had not kept them updated.

The complaint

We found that the landlordhad not set out extensions in a timely way and had not updated the resident throughout its handling of the complaint.

Putting things right

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	26 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and request to be rehoused. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	26 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.	26 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April 2023	It is unclear when the resident first reported noise from their neighbour. It was at least by April 2023, as the landlord referred to reports made at that time and that it offered mediation.
13 October 2023 to 3 November 2023	The resident reported further noise from their neighbour.
4 November 2023	The resident asked to be rehoused due to the ASB.
6 November 2023	The resident emailed the landlord’s complaint team. They said their neighbour banged on the walls, smoked cannabis, spied on them and had spread lies about them. They said the neighbour threatened them and made them fearful for their life. They said they felt bullied and harassed.
22 November 2023	The resident visited the landlord and made their complaint in person.
4 December 2023	The resident made their complaint to the landlord again.
14 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord that they had asked to be rehoused as an emergency due to ASB but had not had a response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint about this and the ASB on the same day.
22 December 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay. It said it had taken a coordinated approach to the reports of ASB. It asked the resident to provide documents for their housing application and said they could have considered a mutual exchange. It asked them to record instances of ASB and signposted to the police when they felt unsafe.
11 and 29 January 2024	The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. They explained they were a victim of ASB, and their local MP supported an emergency move.
1 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request about ASB.
9 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request about rehousing.
18 March 2024	The resident chased the landlord about the complaint.
21 March 2024	The landlord explained to the resident that it needed an extension and would provide a stage 2 response by 28 March 2024.
28 March 2024 and 3 April 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response.
10 April 2024	The landlord said it needed a further extension and would provide a final response by 15 April 2024.
26 April 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response.
15 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and apologised for the delay. It said it learnt lessons from this to improve its complaint handling. It said there were no failings in how it handled the reports of ASB, but that there was a delay to review the rehousing request. It offered £70 for the distress and inconvenience for this, and £50 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord’s handling of ASB, and the rehousing request impacted the mental health of them and their children. They said it caused tiredness that affected their work and their children’s education. They said their children were scared to be in the property due to the ASB and the household spent nights with a relative and in hotels. The resident confirmed the landlord rehoused them on 2 December 2024. The resident wants compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to them.

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.

Complaint	Reports of ASB and their rehousing request
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

We may look into complaints about emergency move requests if a resident believes their landlord failed to act in urgent situations. However, general rehousing applications and banding decisions are usually handled by local councils under their Allocation Policies.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. This means elements of the resident’s complaint about banding and decisions relating to the housing application are better suited to the LGSCO.

What we did investigate

The evidence does not show when the resident initially reported ASB and when the landlord first offered mediation. This made it difficult to determine if it provided an appropriate response in line with the timescales set out in its ASB policy. This was unreasonable. However, it said the reports and mediation happened sometime in April 2023.
The landlord offered mediation on 3 May and 16 June 2023, which the resident declined. It was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy to offer this. However, there is no evidence it assessed the risk of the ASB. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
The resident reported ASB on 4 occasions between 13 October and 28 October 2024. The landlord recommended that the resident not confront the neighbour and call its noise team when the ASB was happening so it could be reviewed. This was appropriate. However, it failed to assess the risks, propose alternative tools to evidence and mitigate the issue, and formulate an action plan. This was not in line with its ASB policy.
On 4 November 2023 the resident reported ASB. They said they had video evidence and contacted the police. They asked to be moved due to the ASB. The landlord had found the noise was not at an unreasonable level. It asked the resident to keep a written record and provide the video footage. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord internally recognised that it could have facilitated mediation, set out expectations around noise and conduct to the residents, and suggested other ways to record the ASB, such as using a noise app or recording equipment. However, there is no evidence it did so or revisited the option of mediation. This was inappropriate.
On 6 November 2023 the resident complained that they could not always get through to the noise team over the phone and they felt racially profiled by their neighbour. They were worried for their safety. On the same day, the landlord offered the resident the option to change properties through a mutual exchange.
It was appropriate that the landlord offered a housing option to the resident. However, it did not respond to the resident’s request for an emergency move due to the ASB they experienced. This was inappropriate and not in line with its housing allocation scheme, which stated it could consider an emergency move where there was a threat to life or where police had advised a move due to serious threats.
There is no evidence the landlord had risk assessed the issue following the resident’s report that they felt racially profiled and concerned for their safety. It also had not set out or reminded the resident of ways to record the ASB when they were unable to reach the noise team in time. This was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy. It delayed the gathering of evidence and the consideration of tools that could have been used to mitigate the issue.
On 10 November 2023 the landlord initiated a multi-agency approach with the police. It was agreed to rule out whether the banging noise reported as ASB was caused by water pipes by completing a “water knock” test. It was reasonable to investigate the source of the noise, and appropriate to initiate a multi-agency approach in line with the ASB policy. However, there was no evidence that the landlord followed up to ensure the “water knock” test was completed. This was unreasonable.
The resident reported ASB 10 times between 13 and 26 November 2023. The landlord responded to the reports and sent its witness service to visit the property on 15 and 16 November 2023. It recorded that noise was heard on some occasions, but it was found not to be at an unreasonable level. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
On 27 November 2023 the police provided the landlord with a copy of a risk assessment after the resident’s car window was smashed and their tyre slashed. The assessment stated that the perpetrator could not be identified. The resident reported to the police that they felt fearful and that the incident had affected their mental health.
There is no evidence that the landlord had completed its own risk assessment to determine appropriate next steps at the time, such as further pursuing a multi-agency approach. It had also failed to signpost the resident to mental health support. This was inappropriate and not in line with its ASB policy.
On 13 and 14 December 2023, the resident reported further noise to the landlord and stated they did not believe water was the cause, as the noise had stopped for 2 weeks. The resident continued to request emergency rehousing due to the ASB experienced. There is no evidence that the landlord had responded to the noise reports or assessed the request for an emergency move at that time. This was inappropriate.
On 22 December 2023 the landlord set out housing options for the resident and reiterated the possibility of a mutual exchange. This was appropriate.
On 11 January 2024 the resident chased the landlord about their request for an emergency move, which they said was supported by their local MP.
On 14 and 17 January 2024, the resident reported further ASB and stated that their neighbour had been discriminatory toward them. There was no evidence that the landlord had considered, or risk assessed the report of discrimination in line with its ASB policy to better understand the issue and identify ways to mitigate it. This was inappropriate.
On 20 January 2024 the landlord deployed a witness service to park near the property for 4 hours and enter when the resident confirmed noise. It recorded that no noise was heard during that period. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
On 7 February 2024 the resident chased the landlord about their emergency move request. The landlord had not responded to the resident’s request for an emergency move. This was inappropriate.
The resident reported further ASB on 26 February 2024. On 5 March 2024 the landlord spoke with the resident and asked them to forward video evidence of threats made by the neighbour. It was appropriate to gather evidence. However, there was no indication that the landlord had risk assessed the issue to determine an appropriate timeframe for responding to the resident, in line with its ASB policy. This was inappropriate.
On 23 April 2024 the landlord considered a further multiagency approach and referred the resident for a social welfare panel to determine what next steps to take. This was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord said that it assessed information from the resident on 9 May 2024 about their housing application. It provided its outcome about this on 13 May 2024.
However, there is no evidence as to whether the landlord considered the resident’s request for an emergency move. This was inappropriate and not in line with its housing allocations policy.
In the landlord’s complaint response, it said that it had found no issues in how it handled the reports of noise and ASB and acknowledged a delay in assessing the housing application. However, based on our investigation, we identified failures, outlined in the Summary of Reasons section of this report, that the landlord did not recognise. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, which require landlords to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
Since the complaint response, the landlord visited the property, concluded noise was unlikely due to the water pipes, and the resident was permanently moved to a different property as of 2 December 2024.
Given the landlord has not offered any redress for its handling of the ASB, we have made orders to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We have made an order for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident in line with our Remedies Guidance for failures which have had a significant impact on the resident.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained on 5 occasions between 6 November and 14 December 2023, including in person. The landlord had not acknowledged the complaint until 14 December 2023. The delay to acknowledge the complaint was inappropriate and not in line with the Code timescales at the time. The delay and lack of contact inconvenienced the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 December 2023 in line with the Code which says it must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging it. This was appropriate.
The resident escalated the complaint on 11 and 29 January 2024. The landlord had set out to the resident on 1 February 2024 that it would provide its stage 2 response about ASB by 29 February 2024. On 9 February 2024 it said it would provide its stage 2 response about rehousing by 15 March 2024. It was unclear why the landlord had separately set out its response times to the complaint issues which was confusing.
The landlord’s extension requests set out that it would provide a stage 2 response more than 30 working days after the resident first escalated the complaint. This did not comply with the timescales set out in the Code in place at the time, which required the landlord to agree an extension with the resident if the response would exceed 30 working days from the date of escalation. This was inappropriate and resulted in a delay to the resident receiving the response.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 18 March 2024. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not provided its stage 2 response. It explained to the resident on 21 March 2024 that it would respond by 28 March 2024. The resident chased the landlord on 28 March 2024 and again on 3 April 2024. The continued delay to provide a stage 2 response and the lack of updates to the resident was inappropriate.
On 10 April 2024 the landlord said it would provide a stage 2 response by 15 April 2024. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 26 April 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024.
The landlord confirmed it had delayed acknowledging the complaint and providing responses. However, considering our investigation there are failures identified as set out under Summary of Reasons in this report that the landlord had not recognised. We have therefore made orders to put things right for the resident, which includes compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) Spotlight report recommends that landlords should keep clear records, monitor progress, and update the resident. Landlords who keep accurate records can meet their repair obligations and provide us with the necessary information for a thorough investigation
The landlord had not provided evidence of all records about the issue, such as when it was first raised and when a “water knock” test was completed. At times, this has impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for updates at several points throughout the duration of the issue. The landlord’s communication was inconsistent and demonstrated a lack of oversight over its contractors.