The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Southern Housing (202320944)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320944

Southern Housing Group Limited

16 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He is autistic and has mental health difficulties. He has lived in the landlord’s 2-bedroom house for a number of years but has only recently signed the tenancy agreement.
  2. Between July 2022 and September 2023, the resident made several reports to the landlord about his neighbour being offensive, making deliberate noise disturbances, and being hostile toward him. He occasionally said the situation was affecting his mental and physical health. The landlord corresponded with him, his neighbour, and liaised with the Police about the allegations, and often concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate ASB.
  3. The resident complained, via this Service, in November 2023 about the landlord’s responses to his reports of ASB. He also said that the landlord discriminated against him in its handling of his complaint. The resident asked to be rehoused to a property in a different location to escape the ASB.
  4. In the stage 1 response dated 15 December 2023, the landlord advised the resident it had taken actions on his reports. However, the resident had not responded to its offers or provided sufficient evidence of ASB for it to take further action. It also said there was no evidence of discrimination in the landlord’s handling of his complaint and offered to investigate further upon additional explanation from the resident. On the request to be rehoused, the landlord advised the resident of his options. It informed him that a mutual exchange with another tenant would be dependent on him having the tenancy agreement transferred into his name and signposted him to Citizens Advice for assistance.
  5. During a call from the landlord in mid-February 2024, the resident said he was unhappy with the response. He later indicated this was because he disagreed with the landlord’s decision that it had responded to his ASB reports appropriately. This was because the behaviour complained about had been ongoing for 6 years. The resident also said that a mutual exchange would not be suitable because he believed his neighbour could find out where he was living. He reported that he was no longer living in the property because the situation was making him suicidal.
  6. The landlord said in its stage 2 review of the decision dated 28 March 2024 that it was unable to look at ASB reports dating back 6 years. In terms of the resident’s most recent reports from 2022, the landlord said it was satisfied it had taken appropriate action, as explained in its initial response. It provided additional examples of what it had done. This included joint meetings with the Police and resident. The landlord confirmed that the resident had completed the necessary paperwork to place the tenancy in his name. It also explained what options were open to him for rehousing. Finally, it reiterated information given in an acknowledgement letter about agencies the resident could contact for support for his mental health.
  7. Following the end of the complaint, the resident made an application for a management transfer that was successful on medical grounds. However, the resident was told that he only qualified for a 1-bedroom property which he found unacceptable. At present the resident is not living at the address where the ASB was occurring and has not transferred to another property.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he disagrees with the landlord’s view that it has taken appropriate action to address the ASB. He also complained that the landlord was discriminatory in its handling of his complaint. The resident advised he is seeking to be rehoused and for compensation to put right his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that the ASB from his neighbour has been ongoing since 2019. While it is acknowledged that the tension between the resident and his neighbour was longstanding, the available records indicate there were periods when the resident was not reporting ASB. The fact that the problem was a recurring one is not disputed, but the available evidence suggests it was not continuous. There are also time limits on what the Ombudsman may investigate. This is because our decisions are based on evidence, and with the passage of time, evidence may not be available, or the recollection of events may not be entirely reliable. This investigation will then centre on the landlord’s actions from 2022. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period- usually 12 months from the matters arising.
  2. The main outcome the resident said he was seeking from an investigation by the Ombudsman was to be rehoused. Paragraph 54 of the Scheme sets out the outcomes an investigation from the Ombudsman may achieve. The remedies that we make are aimed at putting the resident back in the position they would have been in, so far as reasonably possible, had the failing not occurred. Our remedies include, but are not limited to, ordering a landlord to pay compensation, undertake works, or review and/or update its policies. While the list is not exhaustive, ordering a landlord to rehouse a resident is not within the Ombudsman’s powers to achieve. Although it is recognised that this is likely disappointing for the resident, if maladministration is identified this investigation will order or recommend actions to put things right that are listed in paragraph 54 of the Scheme.
  3. Since the end of the complaint process the resident’s request to be rehoused was accepted via the landlord’s management transfer policy. He advised that he is unhappy with the suitability of the landlord’s decision to allocate a 1-bedroom property. The landlord’s decision to relocate the resident and its offer of a 1-bedroom property, while connected to the issues he complained about, are new and did not form part of his original complaint. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This investigation will not then look at how the landlord handled the resident’s management transfer application. The resident may wish to complain to the landlord about this and, if he remains unhappy, refer it to this Service. Any investigation of such matters, where service failing is identified, would result in the outcomes mentioned above. The decision not to investigate new matters is in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman will not usually consider complaints which are made prior to exhausting a landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

ASB

  1. The ASB’s Crime and Policy Act 2014 defines ASB as conduct “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person” in their home. According to the landlord’s ASB policy at the time, behaviours it classed as causing a nuisance included harassment, verbal abuse, and “unreasonable noise”. The policy said the landlord would take a balanced approach to preventing and reducing ASB. Part of its process was to risk assess all reported ASB incidents and consider the vulnerability of those experiencing the problem to decide what support may be required. It aimed to address conflict through informal ways, based on the circumstances of each case, and in a way that was proportionate to the behaviour. The ASB policy said the landlord committed to working in partnership with other agencies, such as the Police, to tackle ASB.
  2. The available records show that between July 2022 and July 2023 the resident made numerous reports to the landlord that his neighbour, and people he believed to be associated with them, were harassing him. The main behaviours he reported were being called offensive names and deliberate noise disturbance. These are behaviours described as ASB in the landlord’s policy.
  3. The records support that the landlord did take a number of informal actions described in the landlord’s stage 1 response from December 2023. This included discussing the resident’s reports of harassment with his neighbour. It also explained how the resident could gather evidence both in person and in a letter of 30 November 2022. It is clear the landlord was working closely with the Police, who the resident was also making reports to that he was being harassed. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports of ASB were then in line with its policy of taking informal actions and working with other agencies to address problem behaviour.
  4. In July 2023, the resident reported that the problems with his neighbour were worsening. This also appears to have coincided with a change in behaviour in the neighbour and resident, as records show both parties had reported threats of violence being made on each side. Around this time, the resident also expressed that he was feeling suicidal. Following one such occasion in January 2024, the landlord made a safeguarding referral to another agency because of concerns about his mental health.
  5. In the resident’s conversations with the landlord in February and March 2024, he said that it had not taken his reports, or the impact of them on him, seriously. The landlord said in the stage 2 response from late March 2024 that it did not agree with his view and provided further examples of the actions it had taken. This included that the landlord’s housing officers had carried out multiple visits with the resident to discuss his ASB reports and the evidence required. Again, this is supported by the records, which show that the landlord also coordinated visits to the resident with the Police. The resident was also advised where some of the behaviour he reported did not meet the description of ASB or was unlikely to be found to be caused by the neighbour. It is apparent then that the landlord did take the resident’s reports seriously in investigating them and it generally took appropriate action, that was in accordance with its policy, or gave reasonable advice.
  6. While the landlord took appropriate action in relation to investigating the reports it had received, it did not provide the full level of support its ASB policy stated was available to vulnerable victims. This included not completing a full risk assessment when the resident reported to be feeling suicidal. Nor is there any evidence of it creating an action plan. It also failed to on multiple occasions, prior to the complaint response, to consider signposting the resident to support for his mental health. The resident reported in a telephone call that he had difficulties filling out the diary sheets. But there is no evidence this was noted on his file or an attempt to understand why. Completing a full risk assessment or action plan may have been helpful in identifying what further support the resident needed. They may have also helped identify different ways he could gather evidence. This also likely contributed to the resident feeling that his concerns were not being taken seriously.
  7. As an outcome to his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to rehouse him. The ASB policy indicated that it would only consider rehoming an alleged perpetrator. However, the landlord’s management transfer policy said it would consider rehousing someone where there was evidence of “severe harassment”. In both of the landlord’s responses it advised that there was not enough evidence to meet the threshold for further action under its ASB policy. This finding was consistent with the Police, who advised the resident and landlord that there was insufficient evidence of a crime. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord not to consider rehoming the resident or taking enforcement action against the neighbour.
  8. The sensitivities of this case are not lost, given the longstanding nature of the issue. The Ombudsman is broadly satisfied that the landlord undertook some appropriate actions in response to the resident’s reports of ASB. It is though apparent that the landlord could have done more to support the resident and consider making adjustments for his learning differences. As the landlord has not acknowledged any failings, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders it to take actions to put right the impact of these on the resident.
  9. We have not made any orders in relation to service improvements and learning in this case. The reason for this is the Ombudsman’s May 2024 special report (which post-dates the events in this case) on the landlord made recommendations for it to improve its service. This included ensuring that it carried out risk assessments in all ASB cases. It also recommended the landlord record a resident’s vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments in a single and accessible way for all its staff. The landlord, who has responded positively to the special report recommendations, is asked to consider taking learning from its handling of the resident’s case in its ongoing work to improve its service.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy closely followed the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in stating I would recognised and escalate any “expression of dissatisfaction” about its service as a formal complaint. Its ASB policy advised that there was a process to complain about or appeal a decision by way of a Community Trigger, which involved a review of the handling of ASB by the agencies involved, or through raising a formal complaint.
  2. The resident complained that the landlord was discriminating against him because it would not escalate his complaint. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had seen no evidence that the resident had complained prior to the referral from this Service or that it had discriminated against him.
  3. There were occasions in July 2023 where the resident said he felt the landlord was not doing enough to address the ASB problem. However, the landlord did not, according to the available evidence, give the resident details about the Community Trigger process or raising a complaint. Rather, it continued to deal with his contact as a continuation of his ASB reports. It was only with the involvement of this Service in late November 2023 that the landlord dealt with the issues the resident was raising under its complaints process. Therefore, it did not deal with the resident’s dissatisfaction in the line with its own policies and the Code. This was a missed opportunity.
  4. This is consistent with the findings from other investigations the Ombudsman has carried out into the landlord, and was a theme highlighted in the special report. Not dealing with the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint was inappropriate and increased the time it took to conclude the complaints process, possibly by as much as 3 and a half months. While the landlord failed to escalate a complaint, there is no evidence that this was because of the resident’s protected characteristics. However, it is noted that the delay clearly caused the resident distress and may have added to his view that the landlord was not taking him seriously because of his vulnerabilities.
  5. As there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling, the Ombudsman makes orders to put things right for the resident. The special report has already made a series of recommendations for the landlord to improve its complaints handling process. This includes rolling out training to all staff with the aim of logging all expressions of dissatisfaction as formal complaints. Again, the landlord is encouraged to consider taking learning from its handling of the resident’s case.
  6. We also encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports. In January 2024 we published our Spotlight on ‘Attitudes, respect and rights’, which highlighted learning from our casework about treatment of vulnerable residents. The findings in this investigation show the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report to raise awareness of the complaints procedure. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from his neighbour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Write to apologise for the failings highlighted in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £400, comprised of:
      1. £200 for the distress arising from the landlord’s failure to provide the full level of support its ASB policy said it could offer.
      2. £200 for the upset caused by its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint sooner.