Southern Housing (202209945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209945

Southern Housing Group Limited

7 August 2024

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:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
2. The resident’s request for a handrail to be installed for the communal staircase.
3. The resident’s request to be moved to alternative accommodation.
The Ombudsman has decided to consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a first floor, 1-bedroom flat and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy started on 18 November 2021. The resident reported having vulnerabilities including arthritis and mobility issues.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 and enquired about accessingHomeSwapper, which is a mutual exchange service.
On 6 October 2023, the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) to the landlord from the neighbour who lived in the flat below. She provided a timeline of further incidents on 9 October 2023. The reported ASB included the neighbour banging their walking stick on their ceiling and verbal threats. She had reported ASB intermittently since 2021.
The resident provided further details of ASB on 17 October 2023 and 20 October 2023. She reported that the neighbour banged their walking stick through their ceiling and drilled holes into her property which harmed her. She added that she had received death threats and the building smelt of drugs.
The Ombudsman raised a stage 1 complaint on behalf of the resident on 7 December 2023. The resident was dissatisfied at the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB, that the landlord had not installed a handrail to the communal staircase, and that she had sustained injuries in 2021 after a fall. She wanted to be relocated to an alternative property.
On 4 January 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. An ASB officer would contact the resident by 12 January 2024 to arrange an appointment for a home visit.
2. It provided details for the resident to receive support for health and wellbeing.
3. It could not offer compensation for injuries from a fall in the communal area. It would arrange for a handrail to be fitted within 28 working days.
4. It was unable to offer her an alternative property. A housing officer spoke to the resident on 5 April 2023 about hermoving options and activated a mutual exchange account.
The resident escalated her complaint on 5 January 2024. She remained dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to address the violence and harassment from her neighbour over a 2-year period. She was unhappy that the landlord had not offered her compensation. She reiterated on 22 January 2024 that she had fallen down the communal staircase in 2021 as there was no handrail.
On 11 April 2024, the landlord issued a stage 2 final response. In summary it said:
1. It required evidence to support the resident’s reports of ASB to take any tenancy action. It had not received any evidence to date.
2. It visited the resident on 14 March 2024 and did not witness any evidence of holes drilled into the floor by the neighbour, or drug use. It asked the resident to provide evidence.
3. It had not identified any failing in its handling of the ASB reports.
4. It apologised that a handrail had not been installed as promised at stage 1 and the job remained outstanding. It upheld this part of the complaint.
5. It offered £15 for service failure for the handrail repair not being actioned, £60 for its failure to complete the repair in its promised timescale, and £100 for its complaint handling.
The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman as she remains dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered. She said that the ASB is ongoing, and that the landlord continues to ignore her requests to move despite her having mobility issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has been provided with correspondence relating to reports of historical incidents of ASB from the resident’s neighbour dating from November 2021. However, under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As a formal complaint was logged on 7 December 2023, the investigation will not consider the events that occurred from 2021 to November 2022 because these did not occur within 12 months of the complaint. However, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reports from December 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in April 2024.
The resident requested compensation for reported negligence by the landlord which resulted in injury when she fell down the communal stairway in 2021. This incident falls outside of the timeframe which the Ombudsman will consider as part of the report. Additionally, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that we may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. Instead, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for it to install a handrail. This was addressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.

The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases can be difficult for a landlord to resolve. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to investigate any of the alleged ASB itself, to apportion blame, or to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord behaved reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy confirms that it will take details of reported ASB and decide how to respond based on the severity of the incidents, duration, frequency, and impact. If it decides to deal with the report as ASB, it will complete a risk assessment to consider the risks to the resident and take action if appropriate. The landlord will inform the resident who will handle the case and agree an action plan.
The landlord will take proportionate action to deal with the reported ASB. It can take actions such as verbal and written warnings, mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements, and good neighbour agreements.
In accordance with the landlord’s service standards when responding to ASB, it will respond to high-risk cases within 1 working day, and medium or low risk cases within 5 working days. Following this, the landlord will contact the resident every 15 working days or less frequently with their permission.
It will follow its safeguarding policy if there are concerns for the safety of someone vulnerable. Its safeguarding policy states it will respond to the needs of its residents by making referrals to the local authority, signposting and working with relevant support agencies, and monitoring and reviewing support action plans as necessary.
The information provided indicates that there was a history of ASB reports by the resident. After the resident provided details of ASB in early October 2023, this was passed to the ASB team who phoned the resident on 17 October 2023. The landlord attempted to complete a risk assessment but recorded that the resident did not respond to the questions. Shortly after this, the case was assigned to a case worker. These steps were timely and in accordance with its ASB policy.
On 20 November 2023, after furtherreports against the neighbour were made, the landlord opened an ASB case. It recorded the matter as high priority and noted details of the allegations made against the neighbour. These included hate related incidents, harassment, physical and verbal attacks, and drug use which caused fumes to enter her flat.At this stage, the landlord should have agreed an action plan so that both parties were aware of how the reports would be handled. However, records show that the landlord did not do this at any point during the case. Although the landlord may have previously completed an action plan with the resident for historic reports of ASB, it should have created a new plan to address the ASB given the recentreports made. The landlord failed to adhere toits ASB policy or set the resident’s expectations by not completing this.
It is concerning that after the landlord recorded details of the ASB and identified that the case was high priority, it did not take any immediate action. Its policy outlines that it should respond to such cases within 1 working day.The next recorded communication was a call from the resident on 5 December 2023 to report further ASB. This was 11 working days after the landlord recorded the case as high priority and it had not made further contact or taken any action. Given the nature of some of the reports, this was unreasonable.During the phone call, the landlord asked to arrange a home visit with the resident. Although this is considered an appropriate step, it is unclear whythe landlorddid not offer this at an earlier stage. It failed to prioritise responding to the resident’s ASB case after this was opened.
Records show that the landlord repeatedlyattempted to arrange anappointment for a home visit at the resident’s propertybetween December 2023 until February 2024. The landlord cancelled and refused 4 appointmentswhen the landlord was due to attend. It is noted that the landlord cancelled 2 visits. However, it quickly offered further appointment dates. It was appropriate that the landlord re-offered appointments as the resident continued to report ASB.
The landlord completed a home visit on 14 March 2024. However, it did not retain notes following this visit of what was discussed. It is essential that landlords maintain detailed records of actions taken when addressing ASB cases. Without this, it is difficult for information to be substantiated.
Throughout the case, the landlord took the following steps to investigate and respond to the reported ASB:
1. It completed a home visit to the resident to discuss and investigate the ASB reports.
2. It encouraged the resident to contact the police about reports.
3. It asked the resident to provide evidence of ASB from the neighbour and clarified it would not be able to take any tenancy action against the neighbour without this.
4. It inspected the property and informed the resident it had not found evidence of ASB including holes drilled into her ceiling or drug use in the building.
The landlord advised in its complaint response that it offered to write to the resident’s neighbour, butthe resident refused this.The landlord said in an email to the resident on 22 January 2024 thatit would not contact her neighbour until she was happy for it to do so. As the resident had not permitted the landlord to contact the neighbour, it was limited with actions it could take to respond to the ASB. However, the landlord should have retained records to substantiate when the landlordoffered this to the resident and why the resident refused this.
The actions which the landlord took throughout the case were reasonable and proportionate to try to evidence the ASB that the resident had reported. Further, it was positive that the landlord fed back its findings to her.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident felt that the landlord did not take the issues she reported seriously. However, the landlord was reasonable to explain that it was unable to take action in relation to the ASB without evidence to support the issues reported. For a landlord to take action against a tenant for acts of ASB, it must be sure that it would be a proportionate and justified response to the allegations and the evidence available. This is in the interests of all parties including the landlord, the resident and their neighbour accused of ASB, who the landlord is obligated to treat as fairly as the resident. The landlord clearly considered if it felt it had enough evidence to take action based on its investigations. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the information available warranted further action than was taken. The landlord requested for the resident to provide further evidence, but this was not supplied.
It was appropriate that the landlord signposted the resident to organisations whichoffered wellbeing support following her reports of how the ASB affected her. These are steps which the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to take, particularly given the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.
Overall, whilst the Ombudsman understands how difficult events must have been for the resident, and how she was affected, the evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the reported matters throughout the case. It clearly explained its position in its complaint responses and said that it had no evidence of the reported ASB following its investigations. It kept the case open and encouraged the resident to provide evidence when incidents occurred.
Having said this, the landlord delayed acting after it opened the ASB case. Although the delays were not considerable, some of the reported ASB was serious and the landlord should have responded sooner than it did. Further, the resident was unclear on how the landlord would respond to her reported ASB as it did not complete an action plan with her. The Ombudsman has seen records where the resident queried what action the landlord would take. The landlord did not adhere to its ASB policy in this regard and therefore the Ombudsman has identified service failure. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a handrail to be installed for the communal staircase.

The resident reported to the landlordin December 2023 that the communal staircase was dangerous without a handrail. She informed the landlord that she had previously fallen down the stairs. In response to the concerns, the landlord raised a repair shortly after the report to fit 2 new handrail brackets. This was a timely response.
However, following this, records show that the booked repair appointment was not completed. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to contact the resident to re-arrange a further appointment. The landlord did not do this and took no action for the following 3 months. These delays were avoidable, and the resident experienced a lack of communication from the landlord during this time about when the repair would be completed.
It was appropriate that the landlord identified where its service fell short in its final complaint response. It acknowledged that it had not installed the handrail as per its commitment in its stage 1 complaint response, and said it was unable to confirm whether a job was outstanding. It therefore said it would raise a new repair and apologised for the delays.
Records show that the landlord raised an urgent work order on the day of the final response, and this was cancelled by the resident on 18 April 2024. The landlord advised that since this, the resident requested it to cancel all repair appointments and for the landlord not to contact her about the handrail.
The landlord offered £15 for its delays to raise the repair and £60 for failure to install the handrail within its promised timescale. The Ombudsman considers the offer of redress proportionate to its delays to re-book an appointment to action the repair. From April 2024 onwards, the landlord did not install a new handrail at the resident’s request. Therefore, if the resident still wants the handrail installed, she should contact the landlord to arrange this.
Given the above, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a handrail to be installed for the communal staircase.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s housing options booklet outlines that if residents want to move, options available include mutual exchange, mobility schemes, shared ownership, private rented sector, independent living for over 55s, and registering with the local authority.
The landlord’s internal guidance on priority transfers outlines that housing officers have discretion as to whether a resident may be eligible for a priority transfer. However, this would only be for extreme cases of ASB.
The resident intermittently requested for the landlord to offer her alternative accommodation. She reported that she required a ground floor property due to her vulnerabilities.
Based on the information available to the Ombudsman, the advice provided to the resident about her housing options was reasonable. The landlord set her expectations from an early stage, completed a home visit to discuss her request to move, and outlined her options. These steps were all in accordance with the landlord’s process. There was insufficient evidence in relation to the reported ASB for the landlord to consider a priority transfer.
It was positive that the landlord contacted the resident to check up on her housing progress and to offer further advice throughout the case. The resident’s housing officer spoke to the resident on 5 April 2023 and activated a HomeSwapper application at her request.
The landlord did not have its own internal transfer list and informed the resident of this. It therefore advised the resident that she could contact the local authority to be considered forits housing register. This was the correct channel for the resident to be considered for alternative housing.
In response to the resident’s reports of her property being unsuitable due to health concerns, the landlord said that she could request an occupational therapist assessment. It said that it would review the outcome of this and consider any required adaptations to her property. These steps were reasonable. Records suggest that the resident followed this advice and informed the landlord that she was told that her property was suitable for her needs. Despite this, the landlord still offered to install a handrail to the communal staircase given the resident’s concerns. This was good practice.
The landlord concluded in that it would not take any further action in relation to her reports of the property being unsuitable. It advised the resident to inform the landlord and local authority if her circumstances changed. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided the resident with a comprehensive response to her concerns. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that further actions than what the landlord took were warranted.
Due to the above, the Ombudsman has identified no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to issue a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2023. It issued a complaint response on 4 January 2024. Although there were some delays for this to be issued, these were not significant.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction at the stage 1 complaint response on 5 January 2024. However, there were delays of 3 months for the final response to be issued to the resident. This was over the 20-working day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
It was appropriate that within its final response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not actioned the resident’s initial escalation request in January 2024. It identified where its service had fallen short and apologised for this. To put things right, it offered the resident £100 compensation for its delays. The Ombudsman considers the compensation offered proportionate to the identified failing. Therefore, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
2. No maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved to alternative accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a handrail to be installed for the communal staircase.
2. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident £100 for its delays to respond to reports of ASB and its failure to complete an action plan with the resident.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks from the date of this report.

Recommendation

If it hasn’t already been paid, the landlord is recommended to re-offer the resident £175 as offered in its stage 2 complaint response to account for its delay to issue its stage 2 decision, and delays to install a handrail to the communal staircase.