Southern Housing (202429128)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor. The resident has several physical and mental health conditions. The resident’s complaint is about ongoing issues relating to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and unauthorised access in her building. The resident said this has been ongoing since October 2023, and she doesn’t feel the landlord has done enough to resolve this.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports about ASB and unauthorised access into her building.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports about ASB and unauthorised access into her building.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports about ASB and unauthorised access into her building

4. The landlord failed to appropriately escalate its actions regarding the reports in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord also failed to demonstrate it fully investigated the cause of the problems whilst the actions it did take had unreasonable delays.

The landlord’s response to the associated complaint

5. The landlord recognised it had failed to respond in the timescales set out in its complaints policy and offered the resident an appropriate amount of redress for this.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB using the definition set out in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is any ‘conduct that:
   1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
   2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or
   3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person’.
7. The landlord’s ASB policy also states the actions available to it to resolve ASB. It can undertake informal actions such as verbal and written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements and good neighbour agreements. If these do not resolve the ASB, or in more serious cases of ASB, it also has several legal actions available to it such as eviction proceedings and civil injunctions.
8. The resident’s reports about unauthorised access centred on fouling in communal areas. She also mentioned drug usage when raising her complaint although there is no evidence of her making individual reports of this to the landlord. Considering the nature of these reports it was appropriate for the landlord to deal with these through its ASB policy.
9. The resident made reports on 10 occasions about fouling in the communal areas to the landlord, prior to its stage 2 complaint response. When the resident made a report of fouling, the landlord’s records demonstrate that it sent a cleaner to clear up the communal areas on the same day. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take in response to these reports.
10. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took sufficient action in response to these reports, however. The landlord sent warning letters to all residents in the building about fouling on 4 occasions. These letters were on 25 October 2023, 12 February, 14 March and 20 June 2024. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take in the first several instances of reports. However, considering the amount of time the problem was ongoing, we would expect to see the landlord escalating its actions and investigations in line with the actions its policy says it can take. The landlord has failed to adequately evidence that it did so in a reasonable timeframe. 
11. The resident believes that unauthorised access into the building was by local homeless people who a neighbour had told the code to the communal door. She also reported that this neighbour had been shouting the code to visitors from his window and allowing entry into the building. The landlord hasn’t demonstrated that it took any steps to investigate these allegations in the timeframe of the complaint.
12. The landlord did send a letter to all residents in the building regarding a visit on 18 November 2023. However, there is no record of exactly what that visit was about or what it discussed with the residents. On 22 October 2024, almost a year later, it discussed performing a joint visit with the police to investigate the issue and interview the resident’s neighbour. The landlord’s records do not provide confirmation of if it undertook this visit. Considering the ASB had been ongoing for nearly a year at this stage, the landlord’s failure to escalate its investigation sooner represented a significant failure in its response to the resident’s reports.
13. The landlord said it would consider changing the door code to prevent unauthorised access as early as 19 March 2024. The landlord’s record-keeping makes it difficult to confirm the exact date when it changed this code. The landlord’s records from 3 September 2024 say it had requested this change, whilst it said in its stage 1 complaint response that it had changed the access code which the resident later disputed. The landlord’s records do not confirm that it had changed the access code until after its stage 2 complaint response on 20 November 2024. The landlord’s failure to properly record the date it changed the access code represented a failure in its record-keeping.
14. Regardless of the date it changed the door access code, it only requested this almost 6 months after discussing changing this, and over 10 months after the resident’s first reports of unauthorised access and ASB. This was the only action it took during the timescale of the reports to escalate its actions after warning letters had not resolved the ASB. The landlord’s failure to complete this change earlier represented a failure in its handling of the resident’s reports.
15. The landlord also said it considered installing CCTV at the block’s entrance to monitor the access. It told us that it was unable to proceed with CCTV due to budget restraints. Given the reasoning we are unable to find failure for its actions in relation to this. It is also not our role to tell the landlord if it should change its door entry system.
16. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout this complaint was poor. It has not demonstrated that it kept in regular contact with her despite the ongoing issues. This is an action that it says it will do as part of its ASB policy. It also has not provided evidence that it ever discussed any form of wider action plan for dealing with these issues with the resident. The landlord’s failure to properly communicate with the resident represented a failure in its response to her reports of ASB and unauthorised access to the building.
17. The landlord’s record-keeping also contributed to failings in the landlord’s response to the reports. Its records indicate that it dealt with the reports as specific incidents rather than an ongoing problem and pattern of behaviours. The landlord should have considered the ongoing nature of the issue and demonstrated that it had a clear action plan for escalating its response to the reports. Its records do not demonstrate evidence of this.
18. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when responding to her reports. The landlord’s records demonstrate that it undertook a risk assessment, however, this was in relation to other ASB issues which the resident did not raise as part of this complaint. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it considered how the unauthorised access and subsequent ASB may have affected the resident. Its failure to do so represented a failure in its response to her reports and a failure to follow its ASB policy.
19. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB and unauthorised access to her building represented maladministration. It failed to adequately escalate its investigations or actions into the resident’s reports in a reasonable timeframe. By the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response there was evidence that the resident had been experiencing the ASB for at least 12 months with no evidence of an escalation in its actions.
20. For its failure to appropriately escalate its actions and attempts to resolve the situation the landlord should pay the resident £480 for the associated distress and inconvenience. This consists of £40 per month for the 12-month period. This is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends figures in this region when there have been failings from the landlord which have had an ‘adverse affect’ on the resident.

21. The landlord’s complaint policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process it says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then provide its written stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints process it says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and provide its written response within a further 20 working days.
22. The resident raised her complaint on 30 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 6 September 2024 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 September 2024. This was 5 working days and 10 working days respectively. These timescales were in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
23. The resident then escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 25 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged this escalation on 1 October 2024, in line with the steps in its complaints policy. It failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 29 October 2024, outside of the timescales in its policy. It did however e-mail the resident to inform her of its delay on 16 October 2024 which was a reasonable action for it to take.
24. The landlord recognised its service failure at stage 2 of the complaints process and offered the resident £50 compensation for this delay. Considering the size of delay and the fact the landlord informed the resident of the delay this was a reasonable offer of redress. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range when there has been a minor failing from the landlord.