Southampton City Council (202520155)

Decision
Case ID	202450615 and 202520155
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southampton City Council
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with his partner in supported accommodation for vulnerable residents, with communal areas open to the public. He has physical disabilities and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He reported a small number of residents causing anti-social behaviour (ASB). He complained that the landlord failed to follow its ASB policies. He was also dissatisfied with a letter it sent to his MP and with its handling of his complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

4. The landlord did not evidence its ASB investigations, or any partnership working and did not confirm its investigation outcomes to the resident. It failed to complete a risk assessment or consider alternative non-legal actions available to it under its ASB policy. The landlord did not complete several agreed actions in its action plan and complaint responses. It did not record its assessment of evidence and formed a view on the likely outcome of an ASB investigation before concluding it. It did not offer any compensation in its complaint responses.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged its failures in responding to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint but did not offer any compensation. It did not apologise for its delay in issuing its second stage 2 response.

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 07 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £725 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling 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 07 April 2026
3	Specific Action The landlord must write to the resident and set out: which ASB evidence it has considered and its position on this, with reference to its ASB policies and procedures an offer to assess and respond to any evidence it has not already considered the outcome of its investigations into a scheme staff member the outcome of its ASB investigations an offer to discuss and respond to any ongoing ASB concerns in line with its ASB policy	No later than 07 April 2026
4	Learning order The landlord must write to the resident and set out what it has learnt from the failures in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future. It should focus on its record keeping failures, and failures to investigate reports of ASB or explore the actions available to it under its ASB policy. The landlord must provide us with a copy of its learning.	No later than 07 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 to 23 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. In his communication to the landlord he said he thought it should take action, including tenancy enforcement, in response to his ASB reports. He said he felt it had a duty to safeguard vulnerable residents and had dismissed his concerns. He said he wanted it to stop neighbours in the foyer intimidating others and overhearing confidential conversations between staff and residents. He also raised concerns about a non-landlord staff member getting involved in issues between residents.
29 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had no ASB reports from other residents, it had followed its ASB policy and did not uphold the complaint. It said it could not remove the foyer seating but would offer private discussions to residents. It said it would review past ASB incidents and investigate the resident’s concerns about safeguarding and a non‑landlord staff member at the scheme.
4 February 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. He said the landlord had evidence of ASB, including another resident’s statement and police warnings. He reported being threatened with violence in front of staff. He said the ASB, which he described as harassment and a disability hate crime, was ongoing and not being escalated. He said his partner was not offered a private conversation with staff and he believed it would not move the foyer chairs because of a previous complaint he had made to us.
11 March 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint. It acknowledged the resident was experiencing ASB but said it was hard to investigate and enforcement was not possible as evidence was often from third‑party reports or hearsay. It confirmed it had a statement from another resident and it could not discuss this but was acting to safeguard them.   It said it had followed its ASB process by maintaining contact, offering support, and involving mediation. It promised to meet the resident and update him on the stage 1 actions within 3 weeks. It advised he could seek an injunction, contact mediation again, or request an ASB review. It also explained why the foyer chairs were not removed, said its staff would close doors for private conversations, and asked for more details to be able to investigate specific confidentiality concerns.
15 and 16 May 2025	The resident told the landlord it had not responded to his reports that an ex‑resident was illegally accessing the building. He said the ex-resident had verbally abused him.
6 June 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP, explaining that daytime facilities were open to the public and residents could admit visitors, but it had stopped the ex‑resident directly accessing the building. It said that in previous investigations, there were counter allegations and a lack of tolerance from both parties and that witnesses reported shared responsibility. It said it had worked with the police on past ASB incidents. The landlord said it was investigating the report of verbal abuse and would update the resident. It said the likely outcome was both parties had to be more respectful, it was unlikely they would resolve the situation, but it would encourage them to avoid each other.
10 to 12 June 2025	The resident told the landlord it had not responded to his complaint of 15 May 2025, prompting him to contact his MP. He said its letter to his MP lacked a named signatory, misrepresented his concerns, was biased, and defamatory. He said he treated the letter to his MP as a stage 1 response and requested escalation. He said he had video evidence of the ex‑resident threatening him with violence in front of staff but said no action was taken. He referred to previous ASB incidents and said the landlord had failed to properly investigate his reports.
18 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged that it failed to respond at stage 1. It partially upheld the ASB complaint element, saying it had blocked the ex‑resident’s direct access but should have addressed the verbal‑abuse allegations with them directly, and provided clearer updates. It said it addressed earlier ASB allegations in the previous complaint and would not revisit this.   It did not uphold the concerns about its letter to the MP, saying it intended its account be objective. It said staff conduct fell outside its complaints process, but it would have acted on any concerns it found. It acknowledged the impact on the resident and recommended regular meetings, with an update within 2 weeks.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaints to us as he felt the landlord had ignored his ASB reports and refused to consider recorded evidence. He said he still received verbal abuse from a neighbour, and the issue of drugs in the property was ongoing. He said he wanted the landlord to take his ASB reports seriously and respond in line with its policies.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we investigated

6. It is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. We can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports of ASB and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
7. Our findings relate to the landlord, not individual staff. We can assess whether the landlord appropriately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns.

First complaint

8. On 19 January 2024 the resident reported receiving verbal bullying linked to his disability, from his neighbour. The landlord has not evidenced that it investigated or explained how it would respond under its ASB policy.
9. In March 2024 the resident reported a neighbour displaying a flag which caused him distress. The landlord confirmed its position to the resident, which was reasonable. It told him that it was a national flag and confirmed it would not be taking any further action. That it confirmed its position was reasonable. It was in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to check on the resident’s welfare and to offer mediation between him and the neighbour. It is unclear whether the parties accepted mediation.
10. The resident reported an incident to the police involving a neighbour on 6 April 2024. The police confirmed it was a public order issue, that they had informed the landlord of the incident, and that the parties had agreed not to interact. On 8 April 2024 the landlord received a report that the resident and neighbour were shouting at each other. It was in line with its ASB policy for the landlord to visit the resident and signpost him for mental health support.
11. On 7 May 2024 the landlord’s staff witnessed neighbours shouting at the resident and told the neighbours to stop. The resident reported an incident to the police and told the landlord that police had given the neighbour a warning. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored the actions available to it under its ASB policy such as a risk assessment, an action plan, or an acceptable behaviour contract. However, there is no evidence it did this.
12. In October and November 2024, the resident reported that a neighbour was encouraging vulnerable residents to call him names mocking his disability and that he was receiving these comments more frequently. The landlord offered mediation in line with its ASB policy, which the resident agreed to. It told him it would be unfair to involve vulnerable residents but took no alternative action to investigate, which was unreasonable. In November 2024, he reported that a neighbour was making fun of a vulnerable resident. It agreed to follow up, though it has not provided evidence of this.
13. In December 2024 the resident reported the situation had not improved and the landlord confirmed mediation would take place in January 2025. It said the outcome of mediation was the resident and a neighbour agreed to avoid each other. It agreed to write to the neighbour to encourage this but it has not provided complete evidence of the mediation or a letter to the neighbour.
14. The landlord did not confirm its position on the resident’s repeated requests for tenancy enforcement action from January 2025. This failed to manage his expectations.
15. In January 2025 the resident raised safety concerns following reported violence between other residents. He also reported receiving unwanted social media messages from a neighbour, safeguarding concerns for residents he said were encouraged to verbally abuse him, and other serious incidents that the landlord said it was unaware of but did not detail.
16. The landlord created an action plan in line with its ASB policy, but there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s report that a neighbour had threatened him in front of its staff.
17. The landlord’s position in its complaint responses on confidentiality and the decision not to remove foyer chairs was reasonable.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably explained that it could not discuss other residents’ ASB reports. However, it did not address the resident’s report that the police had issued warnings. While it was reasonable to confirm its position on legal action, it failed to consider non legal options under its ASB policy such as warning letters or an acceptable behaviour contract. It did not investigate or update the resident on his ASB reports or concerns about a staff member, despite agreeing to in its complaint responses.

Second complaint

19. On 12 March 2025 the resident asked the landlord to review recordings he said showed a neighbour intimidating and harassing him, including threats of violence and homophobic comments. He said he showed some recordings to staff. The landlord’s records do not detail an assessment of any recorded evidence. In June 2025, it offered to consider recordings as part of its complaints process, though it is unclear whether any were sent. The landlord later told the resident it had reviewed the recordings and found no further action was required. It did not specify which evidence it reviewed or explain its conclusions.
20. On 26 March 2025 the resident reported a neighbour playing loud music. The landlord asked him to report any similar incidents, which was reasonable.
21. In March 2025 the resident reported drug use in the scheme multiple times and told the landlord he had informed police. It visited him to discuss this, advised him to continue reporting it, and agreed to investigate but has not provided any evidence it investigated.
22. On 6 May 2025 the resident reported an ex-resident who previously caused ASB was accessing the scheme with a key fob in the early morning. He said he was concerned about security in the building. The landlord took reasonable action to visit the resident and explain its position. It confirmed that that the ex-resident could visit friends and communal areas but should not let themselves in, early in the morning.
23. On 15 May 2025 the resident reported that the ex-resident had accessed the scheme early in the morning and verbally abused him. He provided a crime reference number and said a non-landlord staff member had witnessed it. The landlord promptly explained it had deactivated the ex-resident’s fobs and would remove the key safe. It advised him to continue to report incidents and contacted the ex-resident’s housing officer.
24. Despite the landlord’s actions, the resident reported that the ex-resident was continuing to access the building every morning by manipulating vulnerable residents for the code, using their fobs, or breaking into a key safe. He said he had concerns about security. The landlord discovered that they were using another resident’s key safe and arranged to change the code, which was reasonable.
25. While it addressed the security issue, the landlord did not investigate the verbal abuse allegation. It did not consider the actions available to it under its ASB policy such as a warning letter, despite the resident reporting that it had a serious impact on his mental health. Though it confirmed it could not stop the ex-resident attending without an injunction, it did not confirm its position on this.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a background to the ASB reports in its letter to the resident’s MP. However, it had not investigated or confirmed its position on the resident’s ASB reports to him, before sending it, which likely caused the resident frustration. It was pre-emptive for it to suggest the likely outcome of its investigation into the incident, before having investigated. It did not confirm the outcome of its investigation to the resident, as agreed in its letter. Though the landlord said it had investigated the resident’s previous ASB reports and had worked with the police, it did not provide evidence of this.
27. In July 2025 the resident reported that the ex‑resident continued to access the building. The landlord told him it had asked their housing officer to discuss this with them but did not follow up on this, which was unreasonable.
28. Between 27 June and 6 August 2025, the resident repeatedly reported a smell of drugs and confirmed he had told the police. The landlord acknowledged the drug issues, said it was working with other agencies, and advised him to continue to report to the police as a criminal issue. The landlord should also have also encouraged him to continue reporting incidents directly to it, so it could respond under its ASB policy. It sent residents a reminder about drug‑related tenancy obligations in September 2025, in line with its ASB policy, but has not evidenced any investigations or work with other agencies.
29. In its stage 2 response, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it did not address staff conduct in its complaints process. However, it did not evidence that it completed the actions recommended in its response.

Summary

30. The resident reported feeling isolated, unsupported, unsafe, and distressed. He reported an increased impact due to his health conditions and said the ASB worsened his PTSD. He said he worried about being abused and his partner feared leaving the property. He noted security concerns affecting his daily life and said there were times he could not open his windows due to the smell of drugs.
31. The landlord did not complete a risk assessment in line with its ASB policy at any point, despite the reported vulnerabilities and impact. It did not identify or apologise for any failures in the first complaint. In the second complaint, it acknowledged some failures but did not offer compensation or identify how to improve its services in future.
32. We have made orders in line with our remedies guidance for failures over a significant period of time which had a significant impact, where the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings or put things right. This includes learning and compensation orders, and an order for the landlord to set out its position on any recorded evidence and the outcome of its investigations and offer to consider any other reports or evidence of ASB.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

33. The landlord’s complaints policy response timescales were compliant with the 2024 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It has since updated its policy about complaint acknowledgements in line with the Code.
34. It is unclear when the resident raised his complaints. The landlord agreed to respond to the first complaint on 23 January 2025. It issued a response within 10 working days, in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
35. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation within 5 working days, in line with the Code. It sent its stage 2 response 20 working days later. Though outside its policy timescales, this was in line with the Code.
36. The resident referred to having made a complaint in his communication on 15 May 2025. In its second stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it did not know when he had complained but it accepted it should have logged a complaint earlier, as he repeatedly referred to a complaint in his correspondence. It verbally acknowledged the complaint on 22 May 2025 but did not respond in line with its policy or the Code.
37. The resident contacted us because the landlord had not responded to his second complaint. When he asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 10 June 2025, it was reasonable for it to do so, as it had delayed in logging a complaint and had already set out its position in its letter to his MP. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint in 5 working days in line with the Code.
38. The landlord sent its stage 2 response outside the Code and its policy timescales. It said it emailed the resident on 15 July 2025 to extend its investigation and then on 12 August 2025 to apologise for further delays. It has not provided evidence of these emails. It sent its stage 2 response outside the Code’s maximum response timescales.
39. The landlord acknowledged its failure to issue a stage 1 response for the second complaint. It apologised for this but did not offer any compensation. It did not apologise for its late stage 2 response. We have therefore made an order for compensation in line with our remedies guidance for a failure where the offer of redress was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Learning

40. It was positive that the landlord investigated the cause of its failure to log the resident’s second complaint. However, there was a lack of learning in its complaint responses. We have therefore ordered it to outline any learning in relation to its failure to investigate reports of ASB or explore the actions available to it under its ASB policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the resident initially raised complaints, and how and whether it investigated his reports of ASB. Its records of reported incidents, its communication with the resident, mediation, and any partnership working were incomplete. At times, this has impacted our assessment of its actions. We have therefore ordered the landlord to outline any learning in relation to its record keeping.

Communication

42. The landlord failed to communicate the outcomes of any investigations to the resident, which likely contributed to the resident feeling it was not taking his reports seriously. It should ensure actions are followed through and communicated.