Southern Housing (202323565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323565

Southern Housing

12 June 2025

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 18 January 2021 and the property was a 1-bedroom, first floor flat. The resident moved to a different property in April 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 9 June 2023. She stated that she had experienced issues with resident of the flat above (the neighbour) for over a year.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord sent the stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint:
1. It noted the resident had reported the smell of drugs and the neighbour following her in his property when she moved around her property.
2. It noted it had followed its policy by speaking to the resident and the neighbour, updating her, contacting external agencies, and working with the police.
3. It explained it had not taken action against the neighbour due to the burden of proof.
4. It provided details of what it considered to be ASB under its policy in relation to the report of being followed around. It did not consider the activities in the neighbour’s home were likely to cause harassment or were capable of causing nuisance or annoyance.
On 5 July 2023, the resident escalated the complaint through Citizens Advice. She stated the landlord had not tried to smell drugs in the evening or contacted witnesses who could confirm the neighbour followed her around.
On 2 October 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
1. It reiterated the outcome of a joint visit of 9 August 2023. It stated no-one else had reported the smell of drugs, therefore it was unable to take action.
2. It confirmed it had called the witness contact on 7 April 2023 but not received a call back.
3. It noted it had provided information about registering for a mutual exchange. It had asked the resident to confirm if she could gain access to the system but had not heard back.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 November 2023. She confirmed she thought her neighbour smoked cannabis every night and followed her about. She wanted the landlord to come in the evening when the smell happened. She also wanted the landlord to check if the neighbour could hear her moving about. The resident added it had said they could hear banging at a visit; however, it did not admit this in the stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

ASB

It is important to reiterate at the outset it is not for the Ombudsman to determine if the behaviour evidenced here constituted ASB. That was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord, however, is responsible for taking appropriate and proportionate action to address and resolve reported ASB. It must have adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts.
The landlord’s ASB procedure highlights that it should make “Early Interventions’ to prevent ASB escalating. Actions may include mediation, verbal warning, visits, block letters, and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. Actions it should take when receiving a report include:
1. “Assess Vulnerability – Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) allows us to assess the extent to which a complainant / victim / witness is vulnerable and/or at risk of experiencing harm.”
2. “Interview Complainant / Witness – The main objective of the interview is to obtain as much information as possible from all involved. If you are able to make a telephone call to arrange the interview, otherwise contact the complainant in writing.”
3. “Action Planning – What we can do is to agree initial actions … Agree actions that you and the customer are going to take with any relevant timescales.”
4. “Use Evidence Gathering Tools – Diary Sheets, Visiting the Location, Professional Witnesses, such as police reports.”
5. “Manage expectation and keep the complainant Informed – Be open and realistic about what we can achieve … Discuss the customers’ expectations from the start.”
6. “Engaging with the alleged perpetrator.”
7. “Involving other agencies – such as Environmental Health, Police, Social Services, Community Mediation Services.”
From January 2022, the resident reported the smell of drugs in the block, although she initially did not attribute this to any particular person. Following her first report, on 17 January 2022, the landlord interviewed her and completed a risk assessment using its matrix. This was in line with the ASB procedure. It assessed the severity of the case as high. Following the initial report, the landlord sent out a block letter, in line with the need to take early intervention. Sending a block letter was appropriate as this could help gain evidence of drug use, deter future drug use, and/or help identify a perpetrator. The landlord received no corroboration of drug use.
In February 2022, the resident alleged the neighbour was smoking drugs in his flat, although she did not know which drug. She stated she had confronted the neighbour who denied taking drugs. The landlord also carried out visits to the neighbour and flats on his floor, in line with its obligation to seek evidence of reported ASB. In speaking with an alleged perpetrator about a matter reported, the landlord is not necessarily making a finding of fact. It can facilitate an open dialogue and a reminder of tenancy responsibilities, where relevant. In this instance, it found no evidence of smells.
The landlord also suggested the resident report the smell of drugs to the police, specifically ward officers. This was appropriate as not only can the police investigate and confirm any drug use, it can take action against perpetrators.
From April 2022, the resident alleged that when she moved from room to room, the neighbour in his flat moved to the same room. She stated this made her feel uncomfortable. She also alleged he urinated on his bathroom floor, as she could smell this, and that generally there was a dirty smell. The resident also made occasional report of noise. The landlord suggested that the resident call Environmental Health. This was appropriate as Environmental Health could confirm if there was a statutory nuisance or a hazard. The landlord also asked the resident to us the noise app. This was appropriate as recordings can provide objective evidence of noise nuisance. The evidence can provide the basis for the landlord to consider and/or take action against the alleged perpetrator.
On 25 July 2022, the landlord agreed with the resident she would provide completed diary sheets. It is appropriate to request diary sheets in ASB cases as they enable the landlord to assess the nature, frequency, and impact of ASB. The resident also agreed to send the landlord details of her mental health team. This was to allow the landlord to discuss her health condition and the impact of the reported behaviour. The ASB procedure outlines a multi-agency approach and the need to ensure the resident had support. It was consistent with this that the landlord sought to liaise with the mental health team. However, there is no evidence that the resident subsequently provided the contact details.
The landlord also visited the neighbour on 4 July 2023. The neighbour refused access as the landlord did not announce the visit. The landlord noted it could see in his home and did not see or smell anything that resembled drugs. However, it missed an opportunity to write to the neighbour.
The landlord met with the resident on 15 August 2022. It subsequently wrote to her on 15 September 2022 after it had reviewed the diary sheets she provided. It noted the resident had not provided details of her mental health worker, or of noise incidents. It noted that it had contacted the neighbour and other tenants in the block; however, it did not identify any evidence to confirm drug use. The landlord also stated it had asked another tenant in the block to witness the smell in the resident’s home; however, that tenant had declined. The landlord confirmed it could not attend itself on an immediate reactive basis; it booked home visits. It confirmed it would visit on 16 September 2023 and may close the case if it could not witness any smells. The ASB procedure makes clear the landlord should update customers who report ASB and manage expectations. The landlord sought to do this at the visit and in its correspondence, having reviewed the resident’s case.
The landlord’s records do not make clear the outcome of the proposed visit of 16 September 2022. However, it conducted further visits in order to investigate the resident’s reports. It visited her on 11 November 2022. It found no smells. The resident reported the neighbour dropped things when he followed her around and she was still concerned about his hygiene. The landlord visited the neighbour on 23 November 2022. The landlord noted the neighbour’s flat showed no sign of drug use and the neighbour could not hear anything from the resident’s flat, other than her music occasionally. The neighbour also noted that people smoked in the park near the block, and he could smell this from his flat.
On 1 December 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it intended to close her ASB case. It explained:
1. It had visited her and the neighbour. It found no evidence of drugs, no hygiene concerns, and no evidence of the ability to hear her moving around in her flat.
2. It investigated noise transmissions by speaking to other tenants. They had not confirmed being able to hear the neighbours below.
3. It had spoken to the police who had no cause for concern regarding her allegations.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that at one point the police visited the neighbour and did not witness drugs; however, the date is not clear. The internal correspondence also includes email dated 7 December 2022, following a MP enquiry. This email also confirms that the landlord offered the resident mediation. Mediation is an option outlined in the ASB procedure, and it was reasonable that the landlord explored this. Mediation is often used where neighbours have disputes. It allows the parties to understand the views of the other and arrived at mutually agreed solutions. In this instance, the resident refused as she thought the neighbour was lying.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 25 January 2023. It informed her it found no evidence of drug use, or of hygiene related issues. It added there was no evidence to prove the neighbour could hear her moving in her flat. It also informed her of the repairs it had identified.
The ASB procedure states the landlord may close an ASB case where “We do not have enough evidence to take further action and there are no ongoing incidents.” The landlord followed the procedure by closing the case on the basis of a lack of corroborative evidence. It explained this to the resident, thereby managing her expectations. On 28 March 2023, the landlord agreed to open a new ASB case if the resident provided new detailed allegations; there is no evidence that she did prior to her complaint of June 2023.
On 4 August 2023, the landlord spoke to the police again about the resident’s case. They conducted a joint visit to the resident on 9 August 2023, consistent with the landlord’s multi-agency approach. According to the landlord’s records, they advised her:
1. the police was leading on an investigation of drug use by the neighbour as the landlord had found no evidence. The police would conduct unannounced visits.
2. They had visited the neighbour. They had found no smell, no evidence of drug use, and no sign of poor hygiene.
3. They had also knocked on the doors of other tenants in the block. No-one reported the smell of drugs from the neighbour’s flat.
4. The resident had reported the smell of drugs to the police. However, it did not witness a smell at a visit to her flat later that day.
5. The cleaner, who attended the block weekly, had never reported the smell of drugs.
6. They had conducted a sound test and found no evidence that the neighbour could hear her moving in her flat.
The landlord advised the resident it would not be taking tenancy action against the neighbour. By summarising the actions it had taken, it provided a reasonable explanation why it took this position. In particular, it made clear there was still a lack of corroborative evidence to justify action against the neighbour.
The landlord continued to work with the police which was prudent. On 2 October 2023, it confirmed it had sent out a letter to all tenants in the block. The letter advised them to report the smell of drugs anonymously to the police. On 5 October 2023, the police confirmed it had visited the neighbour unannounced and did not smell drugs. However, it had obtained the neighbour’s agreement for mediation. On 8 November 2023, the police confirmed it would close its case. This was because it had not smelt drugs on a number of occasions and the resident had not accepted mediation.
In January 2024, the landlord confirmed to the resident it had concluded its investigations. It found no evidence to support her reports. It had reoffered mediation, but she declined. It therefore requested the resident’s permission to refer her to social services. Again, the request was consistent with the multi-agency approach outlined in the ASB procedure and the need to ensure the resident had suitable support.
In summary, the landlord has taken a range of actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports that are in line with its ASB procedure. It completed a risk assessment, interviewed the resident and the neighbour, and suggested mediation. It sought to obtain evidence of the resident’s reports from diary sheets, visits, other tenants, and the police. It sought to involve other agencies, in particular to ensure the resident had support. It also tried to manage the resident’s expectations, in particular making clear it had not obtained corroborative evidence to support action against the neighbour. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s complaint policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 days. If it needs longer, it will agree an extension with the complainant. Stage 2 complaints can be investigated by a staff member, or a residents panel with a staff member. It will provide a decision within 20 days of acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. It will agree an extension if it needs longer.
In this case, the resident made a complaint on 9 June 2023. The landlord sent the stage 1 response on 19 June 2023, within 10 days, therefore it met the target timeframe. The landlord in its response communicated its decision and provided the reasons why it did not uphold the complaint. This followed good practice as set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 September 2023. This was nearly 10 weeks after the landlord received the complaint escalation, which was an unreasonable delay without good reason. In the acknowledgement, the landlord apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint. It assured the resident it would consider this in the review of the case. The landlord said it would send the stage 2 response on or before 10 October 2023.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 3 October 2023, by the advised target date. In the response, it explained why it did not uphold the complaint. However, it did not acknowledge the delay or offer redress for it. This was particularly unreasonable given the landlord had specifically stated it would consider the delay. For this reason, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. In making this award, we have considered our Remedies Guidance. In particular we have considered the range of compensation suggested for instances of service failure that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within the next 4 weeks, to pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord ensures it updates its systems to reflect any additional needs of residents.