Southwark Council (202418614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418614

Southwark Council

29 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Her reported concerns about anti-social behaviour.
2. Her reported concerns about noise nuisance from local bars.
3. Her reported concerns about the hot water supply.
4. Her reported concerns about heating.
5. A statutory overcrowding assessment.
6. Her re-housing application.
The landlord’s complaint handling will also be investigated.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started in December 2005. The resident lives with her partner and 3 daughters, 1 of whom is an adult.
On or around 29 June 2023 the landlord’s heating contractor (the contractor) replaced the resident’s hot water cylinder.
On 8 July 2023 the resident told the landlord about concerns regarding her upstairs neighbour’s dog, and mentioned a physical conflict between her partner and the neighbour in 2021.
On or around 29 August 2023 the resident reported the hot water turned cold when the bath was only half way full. The contractor inspected on 29 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. They noted the flow from the hot tap was very hot but slow, it was possible the hot water cylinder was too small, and an inspection by a plumber was needed. The landlord’s plumber inspected the hot water system in September 2023 (the records are unclear exactly when).
On 21 September 2023 the resident complained (the resident’s first complaint) about:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports regarding the upstairs neighbour. She said the neighbour was making her life difficult and she did not feel safe.
2. The landlord’s handling of her request for a statutory overcrowding assessment.
On 22 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it had written to the upstairs neighbour and was taking action, as it had received other complaints regarding them. It provided diary sheets for the resident to complete and return.
On 28 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that on 26 August 2023 the upstairs neighbour had washed human waste down the communal stairs. She also asked for a repair job to be raised regarding the limited hot water supply.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it would write to the upstairs neighbour regarding the waste water incident, and had asked its repairs team to address the hot water issue as a matter of urgency.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s first complaint on 4 October 2023. It said it had contacted the upstairs neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns regarding their dog, and their children smoking cannabis in communal areas. It invited her to report any future concerns.
On 12 October 2023 the resident reported concerns regarding drug users accessing the building, and the light at the back entrance not working. The landlord met with the resident on 1 November 2023 to discuss this.
On 7 November 2023 the resident complained (the resident’s second complaint) about the landlord’s handling of her reports about the hot water supply. She said after doing the washing up she had to wait several hours to get hot water again.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint on 21 November 2023. It said it had been trying to arrange a joint inspection with its plumber and the heating contractor. This had been scheduled for 11 October 2023, but both trades were unable to attend, so it was rescheduled for 23 November 2023. It apologised for any distress caused and offered a total of £80 compensation.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord and contractor carried out a joint inspection of the resident’s hot water system. It was determined that the hot water cylinder was too small. The model that was replaced in June 2023 was no longer available, and the only alternative that would fit in the space under the kitchen worktops was smaller. The landlord considered installing a combi-boiler, or an electric shower. The contractor said it was not possible to install a combi-boiler as the property was on a district heating system. The landlord said fitting an electric shower would not improve the hot water supply to the whole property, and would be an improvement not a repair.
On 29 February 2024 the resident made a complaint (the resident’s third complaint) about the handling of her statutory overcrowding assessment and re-housing application. As part of this, and her request to escalate this complaint to stage 2 on 13 March 2024, she referenced issues with anti-social behaviour and hot water. Following this the landlord escalated her first and second complaints to stage 2.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint on 25 July 2024. It said the resident had only reported 1 incident regarding the upstairs neighbour in the last 12 months, and it had written to them about this. It had no record of a physical conflict between the resident’s partner and the upstairs neighbour in 2021, and the housing officer from that time had left the organisation so it was unable to comment meaningfully. It recognised that there were tensions between the resident and the upstairs neighbour, but said there was insufficient risk to merit additional priority on the housing register.
The resident contacted this Service regarding the landlord’s handling of her complaints on 9 August 2024. She wanted the landlord to take urgent action regarding anti-social behaviour, carry out repairs, and move her family to alternative accommodation.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint on 10 April 2025. It upheld her complaint regarding the hot water supply, acknowledged it had delayed resolving her complaint, and had missed 2 appointments for the joint inspection, which had ultimately taken place on 28 November 2024. It said the hot water pressure was reduced as a result of the smaller cylinder size, but it was unable to install a larger cylinder as the present one was the largest available that would fit in the space. It had considered installing a combi-boiler but this was not feasible as the resident was on a district heating system. This would also be an improvement not a repair. It offered a total of £165 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Scheme says the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease.
The Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
2. Concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
The resident’s complaints about a statutory overcrowding assessment and her re-housing application are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because Southwark Council’s assessment of whether she is statutorily overcrowded, of her re-housing application, and the priority she was given, do not relate to its provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings let on a long lease. These complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
It is noted that the landlord has provided advice to the resident regarding mutual exchange. The Housing Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to order the landlord to re-house the resident and her family.
The resident’s complaint about noise nuisance from local bars is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because:
1. Southwark Council’s Noise and Nuisance Team, to which the resident reported the noise nuisance, is not part of the council’s housing management function. This falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
2. Although the landlord addressed this matter within its 25 July 2024 stage 2 response, having considered the evidence it would appear it was conveying the response from the responsible division of the council.
The resident’s complaint about heating is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as this matter has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Whilst the resident referenced that she was sometimes without heating as part of her 29 February 2024 complaint about her re-housing application, the focus of this complaint was the resident’s position that she should have been allocated additional priority on the housing register.

Scope

The Scheme says the Ombudsman may not may consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. With the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her reported concerns about the upstairs neighbour on 21 September 2023. Although the records show the resident referred to events in 2021, taking into account what the Scheme says, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding anti-social behaviour between 21 September 2022 and 25 July 2024 (the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response).
The resident complained about hot water supply on 7 November 2023. Within her complaint she said there had been issues with this for many years. However, taking into account what the Scheme says, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to reports regarding the hot water supply between 7 November 2022 and 10 April 2024 (the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response). Reference to events outside of these dates is made for context only.
On 20 February 2024 the resident made a legal disrepair claim to the landlord via her solicitor. This was settled in pre-litigation in June 2024, via a schedule of works and a payment of damages to the resident. The matters raised as part of the disrepair claim do not form part of this investigation as:
1. They have not formed part of a formal complaint to the landlord.
2. The resident has already raised and agreed settlement of these matters as part of legal proceedings.

Anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) procedure current at the time was reasonable and appropriate. In line with the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014, it defined anti-social behaviour as:
1. Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
2. Engaging in behaviour which causes or is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to a person residing in, visiting or otherwise engaging in lawful activity.
The procedure said on receiving a report of ASB the landlord would carry out a risk assessment, and conduct an initial interview with the reporting party within:
1. 24 hours for high risk cases (including hate-related incidents, physical violence/threats of violence, harassment, intimidation or threatening behaviour).
2. 3 working days for medium risk cases (including misuse of public spaces, noise, vandalism).
3. 5 working days for low risk cases.
After consulting the victim and any witnesses, it would review the risk assessment, and determine what remedies, if any, were required. Possible non-legal remedies included:
1. Interviewing the perpetrator to address behaviour.
2. Sending a warning letter to advise of concerns.
3. An acceptable behaviour or good neighbour contract.
4. Referral to mediation services.
5. Referral to support services.
Possible legal remedies included injunctions, possession action and closure orders.
The procedure said the landlord would investigate and resolve non-complex ASB cases within 90 days, and follow this up with written confirmation of the actions taken.
As part of this investigation the landlord and resident were asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Having considered all of the evidence provided, the records regarding the resident’s reports of ASB and the landlord’s response appear to be incomplete. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Although we were still able to determine this case using the information that was available, where there are disputed facts and no audit trail, we may not be able to confidently conclude whether an action took place or that the landlord acted reasonably and followed its own policies and procedures.
On 8 July 2023, during a face-to-face appointment with the landlord, the resident said:
1. She was scared of the upstairs neighbour’s dog.
2. The upstairs neighbour assaulted her partner in 2021, which had been reported to the landlord at the time.
The landlord’s response regarding the neighbour’s dog was appropriate. The landlord confirmed with the resident that the dog was always on a lead, and the neighbour did not use the dog to threaten the resident. It reassured the resident that if an incident with the dog occurred it would address this. There is no evidence that any further action by the landlord in relation to the dog was merited at this point, as this was not a report of ASB, as defined by the procedure.
Although the report regarding the alleged assault was historic, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to check its records in relation to this, to enable it to most appropriately advise and reassure the resident. There is no evidence seen that it did so at this point in time.
In the resident’s 21 September 2023 complaint she said the upstairs neighbour was making her life difficult and she did not feel safe. There is nothing within the records provided to evidence that the landlord carried out an interview with the resident to obtain further information regarding this statement, or that a risk assessment was carried out. On 22 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it had written to the neighbour, as it had received other complaints. It provided ASB diary sheets to the resident and asked that she complete and return these as issues occur. However, without evidence as to the detail of the resident’s reported concerns, or a risk assessment carried out by the landlord, it is not possible to conclude that it acted reasonably and in line with its ASB procedure. Given that the resident had said she did not feel safe the absence of a risk assessment is poor.
On 28 September 2023 the resident told the landlord that drug users had “used the place on the top floor where there is a blind stop as a toilet.” She said that on 26 August 2023 the upstairs neighbour had washed the human waste down the communal stairs, and this had flowed all the way down to the ground floor.
On 29 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it would write to the neighbour regarding the waste water incident. While this may have been an appropriate response to a one-off incident, there is no evidence that it carried out an interview with the resident to obtain further information, or that a risk assessment was carried out.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 4 October 2023 said it had contacted the neighbour to discuss the resident’s concerns regarding their dog, and their children smoking cannabis in communal areas. It invited the resident to report any future concerns. However, the landlord still did not respond to the resident’s report regarding drug users using the top floor blind spot as a toilet.
The resident repeated her concerns regarding drug use in the building on 12 October 2023, and said she felt unsafe returning to the building at night, especially as the light at the building’s back entrance did not work. The records provided show the landlord met with the resident on 1 November 2023 to discuss this. This was 24 working days after the resident’s first report regarding this, and therefore not within the timescale required by the ASB procedure. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided regarding the outcome of this meeting, or any steps taken by the landlord following on from this. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its ASB procedure.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint on 25 July 2024. It said the resident had only reported 1 incident regarding the upstairs neighbour in the last 12 months, and it had written to them about this. It said it had no record of a physical conflict between the resident’s partner and the neighbour in 2021, and the housing officer from that time had left the organisation so it was unable to comment meaningfully. It recognised there were tensions between the resident and the neighbour, but said there was insufficient risk to merit additional priority on the housing register. It did not comment on the resident’s reports regarding drug users in the building.
Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding ASB overall, there is a lack of evidence to support a conclusion that the landlord consistently followed its ASB procedure. Failings include:
1. No record of initial interviews carried out within the required timescales.
2. No recorded risk assessment.
3. As a result of the above it is not possible to conclude that the actions taken in response to the reports regarding the upstairs neighbour were reasonable and appropriate.
4. No evidence of any response to resident’s reported concerns regarding drug users in the building.
The resident’s correspondence shows she felt the landlord did not take her reported concerns seriously, and this was damaging to the landlord/tenant relationship. The Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in relation to this element of the complaint. The landlord has been ordered to:
1. Apologise.
2. Pay £150 compensation.
3. Contact the resident to find out whether there are any current concerns regarding ASB, and if so address these in line with its ASB procedure.

Hot water

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s responsibility under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house; and the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation, and space heating and heating water. This legislation places a responsibility on landlords to carry out repairs in a reasonable period after being notified. While landlords have a duty to keep the relevant parts of the property in repair, there is no duty to carry out improvements.
The landlord’s repairs guide gave the following repairs timescales:
1. Emergency (including total or partial loss of heating or hot water between 1 October and 31 March) – attend within 24 hours to make safe.
2. Urgent (including total or partial loss of heating or hot water between 1 April and 30 September) – attend within 3 working days.
3. Non-urgent – completed within 20 working days.
The guide said if the landlord made an appointment for a repair or inspection and did not attend, the resident was entitled to claim at least £50 compensation, unless there was a reasonable excuse for the missed appointment.
The landlord used a contractor to install and inspect the resident’s hot water cylinder. For clarity, this report distinguishes between actions by the contractor and by the landlord itself. It should however be noted that even when using contractors, the landlord retains its obligations and responsibilities as a landlord.
The contractor carried out inspections promptly after the resident’s 29 August 2023 report of insufficient hot water supply, on 29 August 2023 and 5 September 2023. This was appropriate. The contractor found no disrepair, but noted it was possible the hot water cylinder was too small, and an inspection by a plumber was needed. The landlord’s plumber inspected the hot water system in September 2023. The records provided are unclear regarding exactly when the inspection took place, and there is no report of the findings. However, it appears there was a disagreement between the landlord and contractor regarding responsibility for remedying the reported problem.
Between 2 October 2023 and 23 November 2023 the landlord and contractor corresponded to arrange a joint inspection of the resident’s hot water system. Agreeing to carry out a joint inspection was a reasonable and appropriate step. However, the parties were slow to agree a mutually convenient date for the inspection. This was initially fixed for 11 November 2023, but only the contractor attended and not the landlord. This was then rearranged to 23 November 2023, but on this occasion only the landlord attended and not the contractor. The landlord and contractor failed to act with the required degree of urgency and co-ordination. As a result the resident experienced frustration and this contributed to her perception that the landlord did not take her concerns seriously.
On 28 November 2023 the landlord and contractor carried out a joint inspection. The landlord and contractor agreed that while there was no disrepair, the cause of the limited hot water supply was the hot water cylinder being too small.
The correspondence between the landlord and contractor between 28 November 2023 and 4 December 2023 indicates that the previous hot water cylinder model was no longer available, and no available model larger than that currently installed that would fit in the space under the kitchen worktops. The landlord considered fitting an electric shower but discounted this as it said this would not improve the hot water supply to the whole property, and would be an improvement not a repair. It also decided not to install a combi-boiler, as the property was on a district heating system, and this too would constitute an improvement and not a repair.
There is no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the cause of the limited hot water supply, the steps it had considered, and its apparent decision to take no further action. This was poor communication and the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
Furthermore, given the landlord did not dispute the hot water supply was insufficient, it was unreasonable that it decided to do nothing further to assist the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the possibility of re-locating the hot water cylinder, or whether, whilst it had no strict obligation to make improvements such as installing an electric shower or combi-boiler, such improvements would be reasonable and proportionate. The landlord’s assessment appears to have been based on the property size, rather than the number of people living there. Given the known overcrowding, amendments to the existing hot water provision by means of an electric shower may have provided a cost effective mitigation.
The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint, on 10 April 2025 upheld the resident’s complaint regarding the hot water supply, acknowledged it had delayed resolving the complaint, and had missed 2 appointments for the joint inspection. The landlord explained that the limited hot water supply was due to the cylinder being smaller than before, and said it was unable to install a larger cylinder as the present one was the largest available that would fit in the space. It explained it had considered installing a combi-boiler but this was not feasible as the resident was on a district heating system, and this would be an improvement not a repair.
The landlord offered a total of £165 compensation, broken down as follows:
1. £50 for the missed appointment on 23 November 2023.
2. £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
3. £65 at £5 per week, for delay resolving the hot water problem, between 23 November 2023 and 20 February 2024.
The landlord said compensation after 20 February 2024, and any additional works, had been dealt with within her legal disrepair claim. However, having considered the documents provided regarding the settlement agreement made in June 2024, there is no evidence that any works to improve the hot water supply were agreed or carried out, or that any of the award of damages was in relation to the limited hot water supply.
Considering the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the hot water supply overall:
1. The landlord and contractor failed to act with the required degree of urgency and co-ordination to carry out a joint inspection.
2. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the findings of the 28 November 2023 inspection to the resident, or its apparent decision to take no further action.
3. Given the landlord did not dispute the hot water supply was insufficient, it did not do enough to demonstrate its decision to take no further action was reasonable and proportionate.
4. The resident and her household had insufficient hot water supply for at least 19 months.
As a result, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration and the landlord is ordered to apologise, pay £350 compensation, and review and report on the adequacy of the hot water supply, the impact on the resident and her household, and the options to amend the hot water systems at the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time of the complaints looked at by this investigation, said it would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 3 working days. It would provide a full response within 15 working days at stage 1, and 25 working days at stage 2. These timescales were not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) current at the time, however, compliance with the Code did not become compulsory until April 2024. The timescales within the complaints policy published on the landlord’s website (accessed 28 August 2025) are now in line with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 21 September 2023 complaint the following working day, and provided a stage 1 response 8 working days later. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s 7 November 2023 complaint 3 working days later, and provided a stage 1 response 7 working days later. The handling of both complaints at stage 1 was therefore in accordance with the landlord’s policy timescales.
However, the stage 2 response to the first complaint was not provided until 36 working days after the request to escalate, and the stage 2 response to the second complaint was not provided until 10 months after the request to escalate. This was far outside of the landlord’s policy timescale. The resident’s representative had to chase the landlord to respond to both complaints at stage 2. The stage 2 response to the second complaint was not provided until after the resident had contacted this Service for assistance. This was poor complaint handling and the resident expended unreasonable time and trouble pursuing her complaints.
The crossover of multiple complaint elements may have engendered confusion, and been a factor in the delay. The landlord should nonetheless have ensured an increased level of cohesion and timeliness in the provision of its responses.
As a result of the delays at stage 2, the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in relation to complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise and pay £150 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 41.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the hot water supply.
In accordance with paragraphs 42.a. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reported concerns regarding heating is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraphs 41.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of a statutory overcrowding assessment is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraphs 41.d. of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her re-housing application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to confirm whether she has any current concerns regarding ASB. If yes, the landlord must carry out a risk assessment and arrange an initial interview within the timescale required by its ASB procedure. The landlord must provide evidence of its engagement with the resident, and if there are current concerns regarding ASB, a risk assessment and action plan to address the ASB, within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report a senior officer of the landlord must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £650, broken down as follows:
1. £150 for its handling of her reports of ASB.
2. £350 for inconvenience and distress caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the hot water supply, including £100 for missed appointments on 11 October 2023 and 23 November 2023.
3. £150 for its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review and provide a report to the resident and this Service, covering:
1. The adequacy of the hot water supply to the resident’s property, given her household composition.
2. The options to improve the hot water supply, and the extent to which they would be reasonable and proportionate measures, given the expected benefit to the resident and her household.
3. If the landlord proposes to carry out any works, it should provide a schedule of works with appointment dates.