Southampton City Council (202443016)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2‑bedroom flat on the second floor of a building owned by the landlord. She has vulnerabilities, including autism and mental health difficulties. In June 2024, she reported noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) coming from a neighbour’s property. Her reports included noise from pipes, shouting, and threats of violence. The neighbour then made counter‑allegations against her. The landlord offered independent mediation to both parties, but this did not resolve the issues. The incidents continued and the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.
5. There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not communicate with the resident effectively, leaving her unaware about how it could assist her with the ongoing issues. Its record keeping was poor, and it could not evidence it had investigated all the resident’s reports. While it acknowledged this and aimed to put things right for the resident there is no indication it has attempted to learn from the complaint.
7. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It could not evidence the date the complaints were made, and it did not comply with the Code’s response timeframe.

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.

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.

8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a victim‑centred approach and resolve cases promptly, using all appropriate tools and legal powers. It commits to assessing the risk of harm to victims, including any vulnerabilities, and to providing suitable support to victims and witnesses. This may include referrals to support services and working with internal teams and external agencies to address and reduce ASB.
9. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported ASB involving a neighbour between June 2024 and June 2025. The incidents included verbal threats, banging pipes, shouting, swearing, and fighting. The landlord liaised with the Police, but there was not enough evidence for them to act. In July 2024, the landlord referred the case for independent mediation, but this did not lead to a resolution.
10. The landlord’s ASB policy states that, where safe and appropriate, it will use mediation to try to resolve issues before they escalate. In this case, the landlord offered mediation to both parties at an early stage, which was a reasonable and proportionate step to address the concerns without moving straight to more formal enforcement action. Its approach was therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
11. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the resident escalated her complaint in July 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed all incidents and actions taken over the previous year. It acknowledged 2 key issues: the ongoing noise from banging pipes and the resident’s reports of ASB involving her neighbour. Although the landlord had visited the property several times, initially it had been unable to identify the cause of the pipe noise and had failed to keep the resident updated. The issue appears to have been resolved around July 2025. It apologised for these shortcomings.
12. In relation to the ASB reports, the landlord reiterated that mediation had been unsuccessful and that, despite attempts to arrange a visit to the resident’s home in October and November 2024, it could not evidence these had taken place. It acknowledged that it could not evidence investigations into all of the issues raised and apologised for its failures, including poor communication. It offered the resident £500 compensation: £300 for its failures in handling the ASB and £200 for delays in resolving the banging pipes and for its lack of communication.
13. While the landlord made some positive attempts to put things right, it is concerning that it could not evidence all its actions, including its risk assessment. Effective ASB case management relies on robust record‑keeping demonstrating the landlord’s actions to provide assurance that it is complying with its ASB policy. Additionally, we do not have evidence of the landlord learning to reassure us or the resident that its record‑keeping will improve. It should refer to our Spotlight report, Knowledge, and Information Management (KIM– May 2023), for best practice guidance.
14. It is concerning that, despite the resident reporting that she is living in fear and too afraid to leave her home, the landlord has not provided evidence of its follow up actions agreed in its stage 2 response other than its offer to refer the resident and her neighbour for mediation again. Given that mediation had previously proven unsuccessful and the resident continued to report ASB, the landlord should have evidenced that it had explored whether other tools such as a tenancy warning or Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) were appropriate. The resident states she is living in fear of her neighbour, however, despite the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB we do not have a risk assessment to support the current position and therefore we are not assured that mediation is the appropriate action in the circumstances. Neither do we know how the landlord intends to support the resident moving forward. This is particularly important given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
15. While the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was a reasonable amount to reflect its failures and the adverse impact caused to her, we need to be assured the landlord is taking proactive action in managing the ASB case. We have therefore ordered the landlord to take action by making contact with the resident and agreeing an action plan with clear timescales for assisting with the resolution of ongoing issues.

16. The resident submitted a complaint (date unknown). The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2025. However, due to the landlord’s poor record‑keeping, we are unable to determine how long it took to respond or whether it complied with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident later escalated her complaint (date unknown). The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 17 June 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 31 July 2025—approximately 32 working days later. This exceeded the Code’s 20‑working‑day target and was therefore inappropriate.
18. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We consider an apology and £50 compensation to be proportionate in putting things right. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s record‑keeping was poor, and it was unable to evidence all of its actions in relation to the noise reports, ASB, or its complaint handling. The landlord should implement learning from this complaint to improve its practices.

Communication

20. The landlord’s communication was poor. It should review this complaint and implement learning to improve its communication practices, particularly in relation to ASB and noise reports.