Southern Housing (202117545)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117545

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 August 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced during 2018 and the property is a flat.
There have been ongoing issues of anti-social behaviour (ASB) for some years between the resident and his neighbours. The evidence shows that during 2019 the resident made a report concerning ASB about his neighbour, as no further incidents had been reported this was closed after the landlord was unable to make contact with the alleged perpetrator.
Between March 2020 and September 2021, 17 incidents between the resident and his neighbours were recorded by the local police.
The resident states that on 12 January 2021 a public order offence took place when returning home in the dark, his neighbour jumped out from the bike shed and shouted a racial remark at him. He reported this incident to the police. The police then notified the landlord, who proceeded to speak to the alleged perpetrators who raised counter-allegations.
On 23 January 2021 the resident reported he was walking with his daughter and was ‘harassed’ by his neighbour using ‘foul’ language. He took out his phone to record as the neighbour continued to make derogatory remarks, however his phone was knocked out of his hand. The resident proceeded to make a police incident report.
The landlord issued a warning letter to the resident and the resident’s neighbour on 2 February 2021, regarding the ASB incident which occurred on 23 January 2021. This was following a conversation with the police about the incident who advised both parties were partly at fault.
On 1 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord about the most recent incidents and explained how the ongoing issues were impacting him.
On 26 February 2021, the resident again wrote to the landlord, explaining that he was disappointed with the way it handled his case. He then sent the landlord a letter of complaint and video evidence on 5 and 12 February 2021 highlighting several incidents which had occurred. He said he did not feel arrangements had been put in place for his or his visitors’ safety. He further expressed confusion at receiving a warning letter on 2 February 2021 for the incident which occurred on 23 January 2021.
On 12 March 2021, the housing officer wrote to the resident. This was in response to the resident’s letters of 1 February and 26 February 2021 about the incidents on 12 and 23 January 2021. The housing officer understood the resident’s concerns to be about:
1. Verbal and racial abuse experienced.
2. Issues with parking.
3. Public order offence on 12 January 2021.
4. Smoking of illegal substances in the bin stores.
5. Issues with five other neighbours.
The housing officer explained that, due to a system error, she had not previously been able to review the videos which the resident sent and apologised for this. She recognised how frightening the incident on 23 January 2021 must have been for the resident, especially as your daughter was present. The housing officer confirmed the resident’s parking spot and explained it had contacted the neighbour regarding illegal substances. The housing officer explained she was looking further into the public offence order and would be in contact with the outcome as soon as possible.
The housing officer also explained that she was in communication with the police regarding the recent incidents in January 2021 and was awaiting an incident report to decide what action needed to be taken. She explained that CCTV is something the landlord may consider in future but this would be chargeable to residents of the estate.
On 11 April 2021, the resident states he was assaulted in the car park by his neighbour. This resulted in a police incident report which stated it had reviewed footage of the incident where the resident was stating he was scared for his life. The police officer stated the neighbour was the aggressor and aggravated the situation. Following the incident the landlord visited properties on the estate and left calling cards asking occupants to contact them following the incident. It also liaised with the police and spoke to individuals involved. It explained it was unable to offer the resident temporary housing at such short notice, but informed him that, if he feared for his safety, he should contact his local council.
On 16 April 2021, an anonymous witness wrote to the landlord about the incident on 11 April 2021. The individual witnessed several residents of the estate surrounding the resident and he was visibly shaken. They explained the resident was being bullied and believed he was a victim of racism. They further explained most of the perpetrators hung around in groups, smoking and drinking on the estate.
On 19 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord about its handling of his reports of ASB, and said he felt the housing manager had not supported him during this time. The resident explained that he was being recorded by his neighbours’ unauthorised CCTV. He was also unhappy he had been sent a warning letter before the housing officer viewed the evidence of the incident which occurred and he asked for this to be removed from his file. The resident expressed how this was impacting his health and requested a housing transfer.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2021. Subsequently on 30 April 2021 it wrote to all residents concerning the use of communal gardens, parking, bin stores and ASB.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 7 May 2021. It understood the complaint to be about the following:
1. The resident was unhappy with how the housing manager had handled the Anti Social Behaviour case.
2. There being no clarification on the next steps regarding this issue.
3. Warning letters received to the resident’s address.
4. No useful information or updates.
It recognised that to resolve the complaint the resident was seeking an Subject Access Request, to be updated and to feel supported by the landlord.
The landlord explained its area manager was in contact regularly with the resident to resolve the issues and apologised that he did not feel supported or that his case was being handled correctly. The landlord explained the case would now be closed and, if there were any further incidents, it would ensure the resident received full support. With regards to the information request, it arranged for its Data Protection team to look into this.
During May 2021, the landlord wrote to the neighbours with regards to illegal drugs and explained this would not be tolerated. It explained this was a breach of the tenancy and a criminal offence.
On 4 June 2021, a notice to seek possession was sent to the resident’s neighbours relating to ASB.
On 18 June 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on behalf of the resident about the alleged ASB and racial abuse experienced. It explained the resident had provided video evidence of incidents and did not feel his safety concerns were being taken seriously. The MP asked the landlord to look into the concerns and confirm what actions it was taking to resolve the matter.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord wrote to the MP about the ongoing ASB. It explained 7 incident reports had been made since January 2021 concerning 3 households and the resident believed these were racially motivated. It explained steps that it had taken to tackle the ASB so far were:
1. Extra police patrols by the Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT).
2. Held meetings with SNT and police to tackle ASB.
3. Issued notice of seeking possession to 3 households identified from video footage.
4. Held several conversations with perpetrators about behaviour.
5. It also made a community harm and risk management meeting (CHARMM) referral.
6. Offered support to the resident.
The landlord explained it was in the process of obtaining quotes for CCTV for the parking area. It was also actively looking for more suitable accommodation for the resident.
On 28 August 2021, the landlord was sent a statement in support of the resident. The witness explained they had visited the resident and experienced intimidating behaviour from the neighbour.
On 2 September 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord explaining that the situation was not getting any better and he felt that he was not being listened to. The resident explained he was continuing to be harassed, he tried to ignore this but it was impacting his life, his friends and family members were also intimidated or harassed when visiting. The resident provided the landlord with two further videos where he was threatened and harassed by the neighbour. He also expressed concern that the warning on his records relating to the incident on 23 January 2021 had not yet been removed, yet at the time of issuing the warning the housing officer had not seen the evidence.
During October 2021, there were several incidents reported to the landlord by the resident and his ex-partner, including reports about issues concerning parking, verbal abuse and obstruction.
On 3 November 2021, the resident’s MP wrote to this service on behalf of the resident. The MP explained they had first been contacted in April with regards to the reports of harassment and racial abuse. They explained that despite contacting the landlord the situation had not improved and they did not feel the landlord had done enough to resolve the issues.
The resident informed the landlord of four incidents which took place between 13 and 22 November 2021. This included neighbours smoking in the bike shed, remarks to the resident, notes left on his visitor’s car and the neighbour attempted to put his hand through his car window.
The resident then stated that on 23 November 2021, he was attacked by his neighbour at 2 am. He was verbally abused and racially and threatened and chased through the estate. The resident reported this to the landlord and the police attended.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord wrote to all residents about the incident which occurred on 23 November, asking for witnesses. The resident further contacted the landlord on 29 November 2021 as he was unhappy with how it handled the situation and did not feel that he was being helped.
On 9 December 2021 a CHARMM meeting was held, this included the involvement of police and the landlord to discuss the ongoing issues. Discussion about the neighbours and installing CCTV took place. Following this the neighbour was issued with a community resolution warning. It was noted that the landlord was looking to issue injunction proceedings against the neighbours.
On 16 December 2021 the police’s victim and witness care unit wrote to the landlord explaining that it had been supporting the resident following a number of reported crimes involving his neighbour. It reiterated the resident did not feel safe and the situation was having a negative impact on him. It asked for assistance in helping the resident to move.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 December 2021 to explain the steps taken to support him. These were the following:
1. Referred case to CHARMM.
2. Approached the council to support the resident in finding alternative accommodation.
3. Fitted CCTV.
4. Sought legal advice with regards to taking out an injunction against the perpetrators.
On 23 December 2021 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It acknowledged that, since its stage one response, the resident had expressed ongoing dissatisfaction with its handling of the ASB. The landlord explained it should have communicated more effectively with the resident as to what its options were when supporting him. It explained many conversations took place, however these should have been followed up in writing, particularly in reference to the landlord stating it did not have access to temporary accommodation for victims of ASB. It said it should also have written to explain that it did not have nomination rights in his local area, so the local council would need to assist with his rehousing request. In recognition of this service failure the landlord awarded £100 compensation.
The landlord further explained that, before issuing notices or taking out an injunction, it needed to explore other options and needed robust evidence which could take time to get. The landlord explained that, at the time of the stage one complaint response dated 7 May 2021, there was not sufficient evidence to secure an injunction. However, since this time, as further incidents had occurred, an injunction would be sought against one of the resident’s neighbours.
During February 2022, there were conversations between the landlord and the resident. He contacted the landlord to ask about details it would need concerning the injunction and the following:
1. What court action it was looking to take against neighbours.
2. What actions the landlord was looking at to keep the resident safe.
3. If the landlord could not guarantee his safety, what would happen next.
The landlord responded and informed the resident that it planned to issue an application to obtain an ASB injunction against his neighbour, however it could not guarantee the judge would order this. It explained this injunction should provide terms to provide the resident with protection and prohibit the ASB.
Since the complaint has been with this service, information from the resident suggest that there were further issues after the end of the landlord’s complaint’s procedure, however the Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence in relation to this.

Assessment and findings

A landlord has two main duties when anti-social behaviour is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the anti-social behaviour. The second is to weigh in the balance the evidence and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were within its powers.
Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2021 onwards, which were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident expressed concerns over the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports. The information provided shows that on several occasions the resident was able to provide evidence of the ASB being experienced. Witness statements from two parties were also provided in connection with separate incidents. The resident also provided updates on incidents to the landlord on a regular basis. The timeframe and recurrence of incidents being experienced is noted and we acknowledge the resident was in a difficult position and seeking assurances from the landlord.
Throughout 2021, the evidence shows that the landlord took a number of steps in response to the reports of ASB, including that it:
1. Spoke with the resident about the incidents.
2. Spoke and wrote to the neighbours about their behaviour.
3. Liaised with the police and safer neighbour team.
4. Enforced regular patrols.
5. Issued warning letters and notices to seek possession.
6. It made a community harm and risk management meeting referral.
7. Installed CCTV.
The landlord took steps that were proactive in attempting to resolve matters. It is clear however that, despite the interventions, the ongoing ASB remained unresolved causing further impact to the resident.
There is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. Section 7 of the landlord’s ASB policy notes that hate crime or the use or threatened use of violence with the potential to cause a serious detriment is likely to warrant enforcement action. However this is assessed on a case by case basis and first it must ensure appropriate investigation has been carried out and alternative approaches have been considered. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy outlines that it will carry out risk assessments for both victims and perpetrators of ASB, in order to determine any vulnerability and offer relevant support. From reviewing the records provided by the landlord, there is no evidence to show a risk assessment was done at any point in the case. Taking into consideration that the resident raised concerns about fears for his safety on several occasions, the landlord therefore failed to adhere to its policies and procedures.
The evidence shows there were numerous times where the resident was chasing a resolution to the ongoing harassment being experienced. It is unfortunate that in such circumstances he felt unsupported throughout. The Ombudsman also considers the landlord could have better supported the resident throughout this time. Whilst we recognise the landlord’s attempts, it failed to resolve the ongoing issue. In such circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to support the resident further in obtaining a permanent move or by progressing enforcement action to remove perpetrators from the estate sooner. Whilst the evidence shows the landlord explored enforcement actions, correspondence from 2022 shows that the matter still remained unresolved.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response stated it had explained its position with regard to ASB to the resident verbally, but failed to provide this in writing. It found missed opportunities to communicate this to the resident since the stage one response and therefore awarded £100 compensation. Throughout the correspondence we can see that, whilst on some occasions the landlord updated the resident with regards to the steps it was taking with the ASB, there was also a lot of chasing for clarification on the resident’s behalf, therefore it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation in recognition of this. We find the amount offered to be reasonable because the lack of written communication did not directly cause further detriment, and the landlord acknowledged its oversight.
With regards to the landlord issuing a warning letter for the incident which occurred on 23 January 2021, we have reviewed the police reports and testimony. Based on the evidence available and noting that there are different accounts, the Ombudsman cannot say with reasonable confidence as to exactly what happened. However, the evidence suggests there was unacceptable behaviour from both parties. We recognise the resident provided additional evidence and the landlord apologised for the situation which he and his daughter had experienced. In accordance with the landlord’s procedures, as both parties were involved in the altercation, the landlord needed to make a considered judgement based on the evidence available to it to determine what was reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s view it was reasonable for the landlord to issue a warning letter to both parties as the safety and peaceful coexistence of all residents within the property are important. By addressing both parties involved in the incident with warning letters, the landlord clearly communicated its expectations regarding behaviour and implications should this behaviour continue.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to residents’ complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to provide a full response within 10 working days. In the event this is not possible, it will contact the resident and aim to provide a response within further 10 working days. For stage two complaints this must be escalated within 20 days or the case will be closed.
In this instance, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord during February 2021 and this was acknowledged on 26 April 2021. It provided a stage one response on 7 May 2021. It is unclear as to why it took the landlord so long to acknowledge the complaint, as it was notified of this in February 2021, therefore the response was outside of the expected timeframes.
The landlord states it received a request for escalation to stage two of the complaints procedure from the resident on 29 October 2021 to express dissatisfaction with its stage one response. However a stage two complaint response was not provided until 23 December 2021. This is significantly outside of the expected timeframes. This service has not seen any communication regarding the landlord’s delay. However the evidence demonstrates that the resident was distressed, chased the landlord and sought assistance from other sources, such as his MP, soon after the stage one response was issued. As there were delays in both the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses, which caused further distress and uncertainty to the resident, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s overall complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

We acknowledge the landlord’s attempts to resolve the ongoing ASB, in what was a complex situation involving different parties. However it is clear that it did not follow their ASB and hate crime policy by carrying out a risk assessment. In failing to do so it was unable to assess the resident’s vulnerability and his concerns about his safety. Considering the accumulation of incidents which the resident and his visitors experienced, he was supported enough during this time.
We find the length of time it took for the landlord to complete its internal complaints procedure was unreasonable. Throughout the resident complained about the handling of his ASB reports and had to wait a considerable amount of time for a response. The delays in response caused further uncertainty for the resident because he was not clear what the position was.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The landlord to compensate the resident £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failures when dealing with his ASB reports.
The landlord to compensate the resident £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This should be paid within four weeks of the date of this letter.
If not done so already, the landlord should pay its previous offer of £100 compensation.

Recommendation

The landlord to do a risk assessment and consider what other support can be offered to the resident. In the event the ASB is ongoing, the landlord should support the resident further in obtaining alternative accommodation.