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.

Southern Housing (202407153)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407153

Southern Housing

3 October 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:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Requests for adjustments to CCTV.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has a secure tenancy and has lived there since 2012. The landlord is a housing association. The land surrounding the property is the responsibility of a management agency.
  2. The resident says ASB has occurred since 2012, in the form of children playing ball games and causing a nuisance. A previous internal complaints process was completed about this issue in 2022, which prompted a community trigger review. This involved multiple agencies attempting to address the issue.
  3. On 3 March 2024 the resident complained that the ASB was ongoing, she was not being updated, and her CCTV needed to be fixed. The landlord sent a letter saying it needed to extend its response time to 13 June 2024 as it was waiting for information.
  4. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 August 2024 it apologised for the delayed response and offered £125 compensation. It asked the resident to provide dates and times of the alleged ASB so it could check footage. It said it could not deal with the CCTV outside the property as it belonged to her.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 23 August 2024 and the landlord responded on 16 September 2024. It offered some clarification about the CCTV and detailed the steps it was taking to address ASB. It offered £190 compensation (£125 for complaint handling delays and £65 for miscommunication and inconvenience, time and trouble).
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Handling of ASB

  1. There is evidence the landlord has attempted to address the ASB, which has been ongoing for a number of years. The resident made regular reports of children playing football and causing noise and nuisance outside the property. The landlord asked her for further information such as diary sheets and noise app entries, which was appropriate.
  2. The landlord was proactive in liaising with the police, and requesting additional neighbourhood patrols on multiple occasions. It is understandable the resident felt frustrated due to the time it was ongoing. She suffers from health conditions and requires the support of a carer, and this increased the distress caused. It affected her living peacefully and quietly in the property.
  3. While the resident may not have felt listened to, the landlord did take reasonable steps. As well as regular liaison with other agencies, it continually wrote to residents to confirm the areas children were allowed to play. The management agency also sent out communications about its efforts to tackle ASB.
  4. The landlord visited the homes of parents of children believed to be involved. The people causing nuisance were not always identifiable as tenants of the landlord so it was limited in the action it could take. It did advise the resident to report all incidents to the police and share the reference numbers. This was appropriate.
  5. The landlord visited the resident and provided telephone and email updates. Communication was not as regular as it could have been given the impact the issue was having on her. The landlord’s ASB procedure says a risk assessment matrix should be completed. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would do this. We have not had sight of this. If it was not completed this was a failure in service.
  6. As of March 2025 the issue was ongoing with the resident continuing to make reports of children causing a nuisance. The landlord said it would visit the relevant tenants again to speak about the children. The landlord appears to be doing what is within its control, with appropriate liaison with agencies such as the police and the council.
  7. The landlord offered £65 compensation for the substantive issue, regarding communication and the inconvenience caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for the level of service failure associated with communication that should have been clearer and more regular. The landlord therefore offered reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. A recommendation is made for it to pay the sum offered, if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident.

Adjustments to CCTV

  1. The resident said the CCTV outside the property needed to be fixed due to the ongoing ASB. In the stage 1 response the landlord said it could not do anything as the CCTV was personally owned by the resident. This was incorrect. The system in question was a video doorbell that the landlord installed in 2019 (in response to the resident’s reports of children causing a nuisance). It was positive the landlord provided this, but frustrating that it then gave incorrect information at stage 1. The resident was understandably annoyed by the inaccurate information given in the response.
  2. The resident wanted the camera to be adjusted to cover a larger area outside. Once the landlord clarified the situation it considered her request. This included where the camera covered, so as not to encroach on the neighbour’s property. Also, with a video doorbell, the landlord would own the system but the resident would control it and its data, which was not straightforward. These were reasonable considerations for the landlord to have.
  3. There is evidence the landlord tried to meet the resident’s requests. It arranged for its contractor to visit the property to recommend a suitable CCTV system that would cover the areas the resident wanted. She was told in the stage 2 response that, to comply with its CCTV policy, she would not be able to access the footage directly. As the landlord owned the system the data would be stored locally for staff to access. This was reasonable and appropriate. The landlord told the resident she needed to report any new incidents with dates and times. This would allow the landlord to access the footage and share it with the police if necessary. This was fair and compliant with its CCTV policy.
  4. There was confusion regarding who was responsible for the CCTV in the stage 1 response. This was disappointing but the landlord addressed it and has tried to resolve it with the resident. This one error does not amount to a failure in service but rather a misunderstanding that was corrected. There was, therefore, no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for adjustments to CCTV.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it should issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days. It did not comply with this as the response was issued 5 months later. This was a failure in service. While there was an unfair delay in the formal response, it did not impact the substantive issue. There is evidence the landlord was in communication with the resident and trying to address the ongoing issue during this period.
  2. The stage 2 response was issued within the target timescale and contained accurate and relevant information. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation, for complaint handling and the delayed response. This was proportionate to the level of failure. The landlord offered reasonable redress regarding the delay in its complaint handling.
  3. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £125 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress for the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adjustments to CCTV.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident £190 compensation as offered during the complaints process. This is made up of:
    1. £65 for the inconvenience caused by its inconsistent communication regarding ASB.
    2. £125 for the frustration caused by its delay in stage 1 response.