Southern Housing (202509617)

Decision
Case ID	202509617
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground-floor flat with his son, who is autistic. He reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) by his neighbour to the landlord. The reports included noise, dog nuisance and arguments. He also asked the landlord to move him.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Response to the resident’s requests for a managed move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its:
   1. Response to the resident’s requests for a managed move.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

6. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about his reports and failed to properly assess the risk to the household. Its compensation offer did not go far enough to put things right.

Managed move

7. The landlord’s offer of compensation for the lack of clarity over the specific property was fair and proportionate.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its delayed stage 1 response was fair and proportionate.

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.	No later than 22 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £50 as offered in its stage 1 response for its handling of ASB reports if it has not done so already.   A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 January 2026
3	Action plan The landlord must meet with the resident to risk assess and create a formal action plan setting out the steps it will take to address the resident’s concerns. It must share this with both the resident and us.	No later than 22 January 2026

 

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident £65 compensation as offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so. We found reasonable redress for its response to requests for a managed move and its complaint handling based on the amount being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 January 2025	The resident made a formal complaint. He said the landlord was not keeping him informed about what it was doing in response to his ASB reports and felt it could not manage the situation. He explained that his stress levels were high and that he wanted to move out. He asked the landlord to transfer him to a specific vacant property.
3 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and apologised for the delay. It said that although it had provided updates on the ASB case between November 2024 and January 2025, it had not updated him as often as promised. It also apologised for the confusion about who was responsible for the property he wanted to move to. The landlord explained that it could not move him because it would only agree to managed moves in exceptional circumstances. It offered £115 compensation: £50 for the delayed complaint response, £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £15 for the lack of clarity about a possible move.
30 April 2025	The resident asked to escalate the complaint. He did not understand why he could not move to the specific property he said had been vacant for 5 years. He felt the landlord should move him on safeguarding grounds and believed it was not taking the situation seriously.
6 June 2025	The landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said the stage 1 response had addressed his concerns and that the compensation offered was appropriate for the failings identified. It confirmed that it had taken his reports seriously and acted based on the evidence available. The landlord explained it could not provide details about the property he wanted and repeated its position on managed moves.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his referral to us, the resident said the ASB was still ongoing and that it had caused him stress, and he was now on medication. He felt the landlord had not dealt with the situation properly or done enough to help. He also believed his household was at risk because of triggers with the neighbour and a past conviction. He wanted the landlord to move either him or the neighbour.

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	The handling of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

9. After a complaint from the resident in August 2024, the landlord visited him in October 2024 to discuss his concerns. The resident reported problems with the neighbour, including a dog lunging at people and visitors causing noise. The landlord’s notes show the resident wanted it to speak to the neighbour and requested an apology. However, apart from sending a letter asking if the neighbour would agree to mediation, there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action.
10. There is no evidence of further contact with the resident until late November 2024, when the landlord updated him on actions taken after a report of an argument outside his property involving the neighbour. However, the details of this report are missing, which suggests gaps in the landlord’s record-keeping. We have highlighted this as a learning point below.
11. The landlord told the resident it would review his case, decide on action, and update him on its plans. However, it did not do this within a reasonable time. This caused distress and inconvenience because the resident felt nothing was being done, had to chase updates, and was unsure whether an ASB case was open against his neighbour.
12. Indeed, the landlord’s records show it closed the case at the end of October 2024, but there is no evidence it told the resident. This was contrary to its ASB policy, which requires written confirmation and an explanation of the reasons.
13. On 23 December 2024, the landlord updated the resident. It explained that it had tried to visit the neighbour but was unsuccessful and sent a warning letter to them in January 2025. This was a reasonable step and followed its ASB policy, which lists written warnings as an available tool.
14. After the resident reported that his neighbour was recording him, the landlord said it would review the case and carry out a risk assessment. The evidence shows a review took place, and in January 2025 the landlord explained why it would not open an ASB case based on this report. It also signposted the resident to the police, which was in line with its policy.
15. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment. While this may not have changed the outcome, it would have helped the landlord understand the resident’s safeguarding concerns, especially given the household circumstances. It also told the resident this would happen.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for not updating the resident as promised and offered £50 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. While it was right to acknowledge its communication failures, this offer did not go far enough to address the distress and inconvenience identified in this report.
17. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident, delayed updates, and failed to confirm case closure in writing. It also did not complete a promised risk assessment, which could have addressed safeguarding concerns.
18. We find maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord must also meet with the resident, complete a risk assessment, and create an action plan to address his ongoing ASB reports.

Complaint	The response to requests for a managed move
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. In his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to move him to a specific vacant property. Although the landlord responded promptly, it gave unclear information about who managed the property, causing the resident unnecessary time and trouble by directing him to the local council.
20. However, the landlord quickly apologised for the error, clarified its position, and offered £15 compensation, which was fair. Its stage 1 response explained why it could not move the resident to the requested property. It also reasonably stated, in line with its managed move criteria, that it would only consider a managed move in exceptional circumstances and appropriately provided several alternative moving options.
21. The resident later provided supporting medical evidence. Although the landlord again declined his request for a managed move, it acted fairly by considering the evidence and the circumstances. It also acted reasonably by clearly setting out its position in writing, explaining why the evidence did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances.
22. The landlord also acted fairly by clarifying its position in its final response, providing its managed move policy, and signposting the resident to the local council for a review of his banding.
23. Overall, the landlord’s responses were timely and reasonable. Although there was initial confusion about the specific property, its remedies were fair and proportionate, putting things right for the time and trouble caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. The landlord took more than one month to respond to the resident’s complaint. Although it told the resident it needed to extend the date, it missed its maximum 20-working-day timescale. This was contrary to its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
25. However, the landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. This was fair and addressed the likely frustration caused by its delayed complaint response. The landlord should pay the £50 compensation offered if it has not already done so.
26. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and issued its final stage 2 response within the timescales set out in The Code and its complaints policy.

Learning

27. The landlord did well by providing clear explanations in writing about why a managed move was not possible.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. There were some record-keeping issues with the resident’s ASB reports. Good record-keeping is essential to evidence key actions and compliance with policies.

Communication

29. The landlord’s ASB communication was inadequate. It should communicate regularly and clearly with residents about ASB cases, including updates, next steps and closures.