We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Southwark Council (202448650)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448650

Southwark Council

29 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a 2 bedroom maisonette, since 2012. He is a secure tenant and lives with his wife and 2 children. The landlord is a local council.
  2. On 3 October 2023, the resident reported hearing his neighbour talk about him and he felt that amounted to suspicious behaviour. A “complex case meeting” took place, and an action plan was drafted, however, the resident continued to report further issues. The landlord therefore created a new action plan and carried out another risk assessment in April 2024 that made a finding of medium risk. In May 2024, the landlord allocated someone to be the key point of contact in the resident’s ASB case. They liaised with the resident and having noted his concerns, sent letters out to all residents about ASB and noise.
  3. The resident reported ASB on 28 May 2024, specifically that a neighbour had called his daughter names, made a rude gesture and there had been a party with loud music and children playing football in the communal areas until midnight. The resident followed this up with another email the same day, saying other neighbours were selling drugs and his family was being victimised.
  4. The landlord treated that contact as a complaint and sent a response on 1 July 2024. The complaint was not upheld as the landlord confirmed letters had been sent out warning residents about playing football. They had also had 15 calls with other residents who had no complaint about the same issues and had carried out a door-knocking exercise to several properties, but the allegations made by the resident could not be verified. There were also no reports of drug dealing or evidence of victimisation.
  5. The resident continued to make reports of ASB, some of which the landlord said would be referred to its complaints team. These included reports of ASB that took place on 22, 28 and 31 July 2024. The landlord sent another response to the resident’s complaints about ASB on 9 August 2024. It explained the neighbour had acknowledged having an argument, but said no abusive language was used. The neighbour had been asked not to allow her children to play in communal areas or late at night. The landlord said it had checked with its noise team and was told no noise reports had been made around that time and no other neighbours had reported issues. Therefore, there was a lack of evidence to support the allegation, but the resident was still encouraged to report any further noise problems when they happened.
  6. The landlord then sent another complaint response to the resident on 12 August 2024. It again addressed the report of children playing outside and said in school holidays there may be more activity but in general, children playing was not deemed to be ASB. The landlord referred the resident to its 9 August 2024 response.
  7. The resident asked for a review of his complaint on 18 August 2024. He felt all his points had been ignored and said, “Your racism and deliberate laziness has cost me my health and my family’s health…… It would be clear to anybody that you are discriminating against my family. I require an immediate escalation to stage 2 and I do not want it handled by you or anybody in your department”.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for a response on 2 November 2024 and 3 December 2024. He also reported further ASB and claimed the landlord was discriminating against him and his family. He escalated his complaint again on 28 December 2024.
  9. The landlord issued its second stage complaint response on 19 February 2025 and apologised that the resident’s earlier escalation request was not processed. It offered the resident £50 compensation for that failing but did not uphold the rest of the complaint.
  10. The resident continued to report ASB and made a new complaint to the landlord on 1 June 2025 because he felt it had not taken action against the perpetrators of the ASB. In addition, he complained the landlord had not carried out a review of the ASB reported, as previously ordered by this Service following a previous complaint.
  11. The complaint was acknowledged on 3 June 2025 and a response was due to be sent by 17 June 2025. However, on 16 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident and apologised as it needed more time to respond, as he had reported more issues since 1 June 2025. It aimed to respond by 23 June 2025.
  12. The landlord’s initial response to the 1 June 2025 complaint was sent on 25 June 2025 and was not upheld. It is not clear when the resident escalated the complaint, but a final response was sent on 21 August 2025. The landlord said it was awaiting the outcome of police investigations before deciding whether action needed to be taken. It closed one case involving a neighbour as there was no evidence the resident was targeted. The landlord said it requested more police patrols and an action plan was in place that would be reviewed monthly. It was satisfied it had taken relevant steps to try and prevent reoccurrence of issues. It was liaising with multiple departments but was now awaiting the police investigations to conclude before further steps could be taken.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In this case, it is evident the resident began reporting ASB issues around 2020. He has referred a complaint to us about ASB in the past, which was investigated under case reference 202226627, and which considered events up to September 2023. An order was made which said the landlord should “contact the resident to undertake a full review of the ASB case with a view to ensuring appropriate action is now taken on the case. This review should consider the failings this report has highlighted”. The resident has said the landlord has not done this, so this is something we will look in to and address separately to this investigation.
  2. Although we have been provided with information dating back several years, this investigation has only focused on reports of ASB since October 2023, as events before this date were considered in a previous investigation. We have though, also considered events following the landlord’s final response to the complaint made in May 2024. That is because further complaints were made as the issue has reportedly remained unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says once an ASB report is received a risk assessment is done. The first risk assessment was carried out prior to September 2023, but there were others later, on 24 April 2024 and 14 May 2024 and the resident’s situation was found to be medium risk. As the reports of ASB continued it is clear counter allegations against the resident were being made by other residents and the landlord had to also carry out risk assessments for them. It also had to balance allegations of ASB made by the resident, with counter allegations made by his neighbours.
  2. As the reports of ASB continued, on 18 February 2025, the landlord notified the resident it wanted to carry out a new risk assessment, but the resident would not agree to that until he was provided with information about a member of the landlord’s staff. He informed the landlord he was not “comfortable in moving forward with a risk assessment as I feel you are trying to intimidate me”. Therefore, the landlord was limited in what it could do.
  3. The police were able to carry out a risk assessment in April 2025 in relation to the resident’s situation and this came out as high risk. This was shared with the landlord on 26 April 2025. The landlord then held a complex case review meeting on 10 July 2025 and stated it would review whether the resident should be moved from housing band 2 to 1 to give him higher priority for housing, if both the police’s risk assessment as well as its own, came out as high. It is not known what has happened since then, but the evidence shows that since October 2023, the landlord has continually risk assessed the resident’s position in accordance with its ASB policy.
  4. The resident made a noise complaint in October 2023. The landlord responded promptly and signposted him to the noise nuisance team. The resident said he saw no benefit contacting that team as he felt they did not respond quickly enough. However, the landlord explained they would attempt to attend as soon as possible, and it was important the issue was logged with that team as well as with the police if he felt threatened and if he felt the behaviour may be linked to another criminal incident.
  5. The landlord’s advice was reasonable as it was important any issues the resident experienced were logged with the correct team. It also said it would continue to consider whether mediation was appropriate, as had been suggested in the past. The resident clearly noted the advice given as he did later report noise from a party on 14 October 2023 at around 6pm, and the noise nuisance team attended that day. However, they witnessed no nuisance.
  6. The landlord’s records refer to arranging for a professional witness to contact the resident in December 2023 about the ASB issues. It also held a complex case meeting on 11 January 2024, where it noted the resident wanted to move and was actively bidding, but he was limiting his options as he wanted a property with a garden. It was also noted the resident had been offered assistance from victim support and the wellbeing hub, but this was refused.
  7. The landlord put together an action plan on 26 January 2024, which set out the ASB reported along with the actions taken and agencies involved. This included a resident services officer liaising with the police over an historical incident the resident had reported at a train station as well as discussing with the resident whether he could possibly rent privately.
  8. The resident then notified the landlord in April 2024 that drug dealing was happening where he lived and in March there had been a fight with swearing and shouting. The landlord addressed that quickly and informed the resident it had assigned a particular person to be his point of contact and they would make contact the following week. It also considered his request for CCTV to be fitted, but at that time, it did not deem his request necessary or proportionate.
  9. The landlord’s specific point of contact introduced themselves to the resident on 9 May 2024. The notes from that meeting say the resident explained there had not been any further issues with one of the neighbours as he had not seen them since before Christmas. Another neighbour had made a comment as they walked by, but it was not clear if it was directed to the resident. However, another neighbour was allowing their children to play football until late. The resident was advised to proactively bid on properties and consider other areas, and to continue to report further incidents of new ASB to the police community line. The member of staff spoke with one of the neighbours about the resident’s allegations the same day but they denied them. The landlord agreed to send letters out to all residents to try and improve the situation.
  10. The resident notified the landlord on 28 May 2024 that the ASB had got worse as a neighbour had called his daughter an offensive name, there had been a party and children were still playing football late. The landlord reminded the resident to contact the noise nuisance team, who could attend and report back if there was an issue. It would contact the neighbour about what was said, and as promised, it sent letters to all residents about playing football later that day.
  11. The resident responded to the landlord by alleging a couple of neighbours were dealing drugs. The landlord therefore enquired with the police to check whether the resident had reported this. The police confirmed there had been no ASB related calls from the resident since January 2024.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord did take steps to make other residents aware there had been complaints about ASB and to try and stop it happening. It rightly explained to the resident as per its ASB policy, that noise complaints should be reported to the noise nuisance team and any criminal matters, such as drug dealing, should be reported to the police, but it seems this was not always done.
  13. On 19 June 2024 the landlord advised the resident he had an unauthorised CCTV camera fitted to his property and another placed on the landing below on some scaffolding. It explained a camera must only focus on his property and not others, otherwise he would be breaching privacy laws, and the equipment could be taken down under its antisocial behaviour policy. It is not clear what part of the ASB policy the landlord was relying upon as we have not seen a specific policy on CCTV. It is therefore also unclear how the camera could be unauthorised without a policy being in place. The landlord should ensure it has a policy on CCTV usage that it can refer residents to.
  14. The resident installed the cameras to try and capture evidence of ASB and the landlord was not telling the resident he could not have CCTV, it just explained it could only focus on his own property. This was in line with guidance provided by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO website says “where possible owners should position their cameras to only capture their own property. However, if this isn’t possible and the CCTV captures someone else’s property, a public area or communal space, then data protection law applies. This is because CCTV can capture images and voices of other people, and this counts as their personal information”. The landlord was therefore right when it said it was important any CCTV the resident had only covered his own property.
  15. In response to a complaint from the resident about ASB, on 1 July 2024 the landlord explained that having sent letters to all residents, it received 15 telephone calls from other residents to say they had not observed children playing football until midnight as alleged. It said it had also conducted a door-knocking exercise at 8 properties near the reported location, and these residents also did not verify the allegations. It also contacted the noise nuisance team and the safer neighbourhood team, and neither had received any complaints relating to children playing football. There had also been no other complaints about drug dealing or noise. Therefore, further evidence would be needed of victimisation.
  16. It is clear the resident felt he was being targeted at times and he has explained that certain incidents were having a significant impact on them day to day. However, the landlord appropriately noted his concerns, but was limited in what action it could take, as there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations made.
  17. From July 2024 the landlord continued to have complex case meetings and continued to work with the police. The resident continued to report issues with some of his neighbours. He reported a neighbour for banging and swearing and asked the landlord to tell them they were in breach of their tenancy by causing a nuisance to other people. He also reported people using threatening language and behaviour and said children were continuing to play football until late. The police made the landlord aware that the resident had reported the matter to them, and they would conduct patrols and advise the children accordingly, if they came across them. The landlord made the police aware that letters had been sent to all residents about that in May 2024, so information was being shared.
  18. The resident did report some noise issues and asked for the landlord to take action. The landlord explained though, that children playing would not usually be considered ASB, but it did still speak to the neighbour involved. The neighbour did accept a conversation had got heated but denied using abusive language. The landlord also checked with the noise nuisance team and it confirmed there were no reports on the dates in question. It also spoke with other residents nearby and they did not report a disturbance. As there was no evidence in support of the ASB claim, the landlord could not take any further action. However, the resident was rightly told to continue to report any noise issues to the noise nuisance team, and it would be monitored.
  19. On 18 August 2024, the resident told the landlord that he felt it was discriminating against him and his family as it had not properly addressed the issues he had raised. The Ombudsman cannot make findings of discrimination against the landlord, but the evidence shows it recorded his reports and took reasonable steps to try and address the ASB. All reports were logged, but there was a lack of evidence which meant the landlord was limited in what it could do.
  20. The resident later reported a neighbour for letting off fireworks and causing damage to a window, and the landlord wrote to the neighbour about that. The resident continued to allege that the landlord was discriminating against his family as he felt it was not taking sufficient action to address the ASB, something the landlord denied.
  21. The resident reported further ASB on 23 April 2025 and this included homophobic and transphobic comments, and the resident said a neighbour had been arrested. The landlord acknowledged this and said it had contacted the police to get more information, and said it was sorry for the impact it had had on his family. It asked to meet to discuss what happened. The landlord continued to liaise with the police who confirmed it had increased its risk assessment to ‘high’ and they had conducted a leaflet drop to all residents about ASB in the hope to improve matters.
  22. The evidence indicates that both the landlord and police took action in response to the resident reporting ASB issues, but his neighbours also raised their own concerns about the resident’s family. The resident was reminded that resident services officers had about 600 people each that they were responsible for, so had an obligation to take in to account allegations made from all parties. It could not therefore, simply tell the resident’s neighbours that they were in breach of their tenancies and seek to get them evicted. It had to take a balanced approach. In response to further reports of ASB issues, the landlord has offered to meet with the resident in order to discuss matters further, encouraged the resident to continue to report issues to the noise nuisance team, keep diaries and report matters to the police. It has also recently accepted a request from the resident for a community trigger review.
  23. It is not our role to determine whether there has been ASB. It is to consider the landlord’s handling of the reports made. The landlord’s ASB policy says it takes a victim-centred approach but will not raise expectations, however, it will work with them to resolve problems. It should signpost to support agencies as required and take a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB.
  24. Evidence provided shows mediation had been considered in the past and although it was mentioned again later, there did not seem to be the appetite from all parties for that to be pursued. The resident has explained that he and his family have been through a difficult time, but the landlord took action to investigate and intervene following his reports of ASB. It worked cohesively with other organisations to address the ASB. It liaised with the police and worked with them in terms of sharing information including risk assessments, spoke to neighbours, considered CCTV, arranged a professional witness, responded to noise reports promptly, sent warning letters to residents, and undertook warden patrols. In addition, it signposted the resident to organisations that may be able to offer support and encouraged him to report and keep a record of any issues and to proactively bid on other properties.
  25. There is reference to the resident wanting to stay locally and wanting a property with a garden. However, if he and his family wish to move then the landlord has explained that consideration should be given to other areas and that may mean another property could be found sooner. The resident seems to feel strongly that his neighbours ought to be told they are in breach of their tenancy agreements, but the landlord has warned people about their behaviour. Seeking to evict someone should be a last resort, and while all ASB issues have been logged, not all have been supported by evidence, which has prevented the landlord being able to take a more robust approach. In addition, some of the neighbours have made counter allegations against the resident, which the landlord has also had to take in to account.
  26. Overall, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address the ASB reports in line with its ASB policy, so there has been no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said if a complaint could not be resolved by way of early resolution, it would be dealt with via 2 stages. The initial complaint phase, where a response should be issued within 15 working days and the review phase, when a response should be sent within 25 working days.
  2. Having reviewed the evidence provided, it is clear the resident has made many complaints to the landlord about several matters, some of which overlap. This investigation has focused only on ASB issues reported since October 2023 and it is apparent that on occasion, when the resident was reporting incidents, the landlord seems to have referred matters to its complaints team and created a new complaint. This may have caused confusion.
  3. Having already reported ASB, the resident raised further issues in relation to ASB on 28 May 2024 and said he wanted the landlord to take action. This was taken to be a complaint which the landlord addressed 23 working days later. It is not clear whether this was actually a complaint from the resident, but as it was treated as one by the landlord, it should have ensured it complied with the time limits of its complaints policy, and it failed to do that.
  4. The resident continued to report ASB. On 22 July 2024, he re-raised an issue with people playing football in communal areas late, that the landlord ought to tell the neighbours they were breaching their tenancy, there had been an argument and the resident had felt threatened. The landlord responded on 26 July 2024 by saying it would log these issues as a new complaint. This was not the resident making a new complaint about the landlord, it was reporting additional ASB which he wanted the landlord to investigate.
  5. On 28 July 2024 the resident reported being verbally abused in a park, and reported a neighbour being noisy on 29 July 2024 and 31 July 2024. On 1 August 2024, the landlord again said it had sent these reports to its complaints team, despite the resident not making a complaint. He was just reporting instances of ASB. The landlord did issue a comprehensive response to the resident on 9 August 2024 though, and followed that up with another response to the complaints on 12 August 2024.
  6. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to the issues raised by the resident in a timely manner, but its approach creating new complaints, unnecessarily confused matters. The resident clearly made reports of ASB, therefore they should have been responded to by the landlord in accordance with its ASB policy, as opposed to recording them as service complaints. By not doing that, is a failure in its service.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 18 August 2024 and had to chase the landlord a couple of times for a response, while also raising new complaints. The landlord did send a review response on 19 February 2025 and acknowledged the delay dealing with the escalation request. It offered the resident £50 compensation.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy says compensation for time and trouble is usually between £50 and £250. In this case, there was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its review of the complaint, and the resident was inconvenienced having to flag this to the landlord. However, when considering whether the £50 compensation offered was reasonable, we have taken in to account that the landlord did acknowledge the delay and tried to put it right. In addition, it had already provided a comprehensive response to the issues raised by the resident at the first stage. Therefore, there was little more it could add at the review stage. Taking that in to account, the compensation offered at the review stage was reasonable and proportionate to the failing identified.
  9. The resident then made another complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB on 1 June 2025. This was acknowledged on 3 June 2025 and on 8 June 2025, the resident submitted further issues for the landlord to address. The landlord told the resident it would need more time to respond to the complaint and would issue its response by 23 June 2023. However, it actually took a further 2 working days for the response to be sent. While not perfect service, it only amounts to a minor delay. Although it is not clear when the resident escalated this complaint to the review stage, the landlord’s final response was sent on 21 August 2025, which is within 25 working days from its first response. Therefore, there was no further delay.
  10. The landlord’s review response sent on 19 February 2025 was sent late, but it acknowledged this and offered to make amends by offering £50 compensation. It did cause some confusion by recording some ASB issues as complaints, but it did address the issues. It is also important to recognise that the resident has made many complaints to the landlord, and this has meant it has sometimes been difficult for the landlord to manage at times.
  11. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  12. In this case the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy resulting in minor inconvenience to the resident. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is in line with its compensation policy, as well as our guidance. As a result, we would have made the same or similar award in the circumstances, and we therefore make a finding of reasonable redress. The landlord had made an offer which was reasonable and proportionate to resolve the complaint.
  13. With regard to the landlord’s complaints procedure not being in line with our Complaint Handling Code, it now has a statutory obligation to ensure such compliance and this is monitored by a dedicated team within the Ombudsman. As a result, no recommendation is made in that regard, but the landlord should take steps to ensure that it is aware of, and complying with, its obligations in relation to the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord ought to:
    1. Produce guidance for residents on the use of CCTV at properties, to ensure a consistent approach is applied to all residents.
    2. Pay the resident the £50 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised a deficiency in the way it dealt with the handling of the resident’s complaints. The reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.