Southern Housing (202329683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329683

Southern Housing

11 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Communication about legal action against the resident’s neighbour.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be moved.
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 16 February 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom flat.
On 14 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged the resident had submitted approximately 50 videos to support her reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB). It also said it would a carry out a review of the resident’s evidence to “include relevant legal service providers as appropriate.” The outcome of the review would be communicated to the resident setting out either its position or details of next steps.”
On 1 March 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. She said it had told her it was taking legal action against her neighbour above. She had submitted videos of noise nuisance and an “extensive” diary log of all recent incidents but had not received an update. She was dissatisfied with the lack of communication.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 19 May 2022. It said the case had not been handled according to its timescales and it upheld the complaint. It said the was a “live action plan” in place for it to contact the resident to provide an update following a case review by its solicitor. It offered £25 for failure of service.
During a phone call with the resident on 20 May 2022 the landlord advised it was not taking legal action against her neighbour. It proposed other steps that could be taken to try to address the noise issue including mediation and sound proofing. The resident requested a formal stage 1 complaint response.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord provided another stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed the previous ASB case officer was on maternity leave and apologised for not updating her. Its solicitor had carried out a case review on 18 May. It reiterated it would not be pursuing legal action against her neighbour and again asked her to consider other action it had proposed.
The resident emailed her MP on 30 June 2022 to set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She said the ASB had been ongoing for years. Because previous interventions had failed it had said it would progress the case to court. She’d tried to seek updates but it took months for the landlord to respond. The alternative steps it suggested in its stage 1 response had already been tried however they failed to resolve the situation.
In her email to the landlord of 8 August 2022 the resident said she felt “blindsided and tricked” into believing it was taking the case seriously. She asked for a management move and to escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On 25 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response as follows:
1. Its solicitor had advised that the evidence provided by the resident was not sufficient for it to pursue legal action against her neighbour.
2. It would return the 2 USB sticks to the resident via recorded delivery as requested.
3. The officer should not have said it would apply to court before its solicitor had reviewed the evidence. Therefore the resident’s complaint was partially upheld.
4. It confirmed it had referred the case to ‘crime concern’ for assistance in investigating aspects of the complaint relating to ASB as well as noise. They would contact the resident to arrange to witness the noise.
5. When it wrote to the resident on 14 May 2021 it said its surveyor would visit. It was “disappointed” to learn this did not take place until March 2022.
6. It said it had booked an appointment to visit the resident’s property on 1 December 2022 to assess noise transference. It apologised this had not already been done.
7. The resident did not meet the criteria for the local authority to progress an application for a priority move. It could not consider a management move for the resident and her sister to separate accommodation. This was because it could not offer 2 separate tenancies in place of the one she held.
8. There was a 10 month delay in actioning the case review and the request to escalate to stage 2 made in August was not actioned until October.
9. It offered £175 compensation comprised of:
  1. £25 for failure of service.
  2. £50 for the delay in referring the case to its solicitor for review.
  3. £50 for the delay in escalating to stage 2.
  4. £50 for advising the resident it would apply for an injunction.

Events post internal complaints process

On 1 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that it did not carry out a survey in March 2022. She also requested that it consider her for a reciprocal move with the local authority. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that March 2022 was the date when the case was referred to its solicitor for review. It said it would refer the resident’s request for a reciprocal move to the relevant team for a response.
The resident submitted an online complaint to us on 23 November 2023. In an email to us on 24 August 2025 the resident said the landlord had not returned the USB sticks and had not inspected the property below. She also said noise from the property above was ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s communication about legal action against the resident’s neighbour

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 14 May 2021 agreed to carry out a case review including a review by legal services. A letter was sent to the resident’s neighbour above on 27 May 2022 confirming that a referral to its solicitor had taken place.
We have not seen evidence of the referral or the solicitor’s case review. It is therefore unclear whether the referral was never made or it was but its solicitor did not respond and it did not chase. In either case the landlord failed to complete the action set out as part of its complaint resolution which was inappropriate.
On 1 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update. She set out the impact on her physical and mental health. She referred to evidence she had provided to the landlord to support her reports. We have not seen the evidence provided which is a record keeping failure. It also means it’s unclear whether the resident continued to provide evidence after the stage 2 complaint response of 14 May 2021. This has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
In her email to the landlord of 8 April 2022 the resident asserted that the case had been referred to its solicitor in July 2021. She said she had been chasing for an update for 9 months. We do not doubt the resident’s account however we have not seen evidence of her contact with the landlord during this period. This has impacted on our assessment of its response. However, we note that its stage 1 response of 13 June 2022 acknowledged it had failed to provide updates while the officer was on maternity leave.
An internal email dated 20 May 2022 said that during the landlord’s call to the resident that day she said the ASB was ongoing. It had advised her that it was not taking legal action against her neighbour above due to a lack of evidence. It suggested taking appropriate alternative steps. The resident declined as they had been carried out before and failed to be effective.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 13 June 2022 said it reviewed the case with its solicitor on 18 May 2022. Despite being included in our information request we have not seen any evidence of the case review which is a record keeping failure.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 8 August 2022 set out her disappointment with its response. She agreed for a surveyor to attend her property to inspect sound quality. She also requested that it inspect the property below. This was because she believed they had laminate or wooden flooring which might be contributing to the noise issues. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to her request which was inappropriate.
A file note dated 11 October 2022 indicated that the ASB case records suggested legal action was “in motion.” The new case officer emailed the landlord’s solicitor to say a colleague had referred a case for legal action to be taken against the neighbour above. However, “there was nothing else on our system.” It is concerning that the officer was unable to access records of the legal case review carried out on 18 May. Furthermore, we have not seen evidence that a response was received or that this was followed up by the officer which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 25 November 2022said it would return the resident’s USB sticks to her. It also said it would visit her on 1 December to inspect her property.
In her email to us dated 24 August 2025 the resident said she never received the USB sticks. That it did not follow through its complaint resolution commitments was inappropriate. Instead of taking action to put things right it gave the resident further cause for complaint which undermined the landlord/resident relationship. It is also unclear if the inspection took place as arranged.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts with residents yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
We carried out a special investigation into the landlord in May 2024. We recommended that the landlord improve its record keeping. Therefore it’s not been necessary to make a further order in this determination.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. It is unclear if the £25 for failure of service offered at stage 2 is in addition to the £25 offered at stage 1.
At most the landlord offered £150 compensation. This is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report. The landlord has been ordered to pay £300 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance. The landlord may deduct the compensation it has offered if this has already been paid.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved

When the resident emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint on 8 August 2022 she asked for a management move. Its stage 2 complaint response dated 25 November provided appropriate information about her housing options. However while this was positive this was 3 months after the resident made the request. In the circumstances it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay its response until the date of its complaint response.
The evidence shows that during the resident’s discussion with the landlord about her stage 2 complaint she requested a reciprocal move. The date of the discussion is unclear. Therefore it’s unclear whether the discussion took place before or after the stage 2 response was issued. This has impacted on our assessment of the landlord’s response.
On 1 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it would consider her request for a reciprocal move and provide an update in due course. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures amount to service failure. It has been ordered to pay the resident £50 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance where the failures did not cause significant distress and inconvenience.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will contact residents to discuss their stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will acknowledge receipt of the complaint, confirm its understanding and find out what resolution the resident is seeking. It will provide a response within 10 working days unless there is good reason for an extension.
If a resident is dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response they can escalate the complaint within 20 working days of the date of its response. It will acknowledge the request within 5 working days of receipt of an escalation request. It will provide a response within 20 working days. It will not extend the deadline by more than 10 working days without good reason and the resident’s agreement.
On 1 March 2022 the resident made a stage 1 complaint The landlord failed to respond causing the resident distress, time and trouble when she emailed on 25 March 2022 to chase.
On 28 March 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint and set out its understanding. It confirmed it would respond within 10 working days, which was 11 April 2022. The resident replied on 8 April to set out in clear terms the nature of her complaint. In response to a further email from the landlord, also sent on 8 April, the resident replied on 13 April 2022. She said it had still not understood her complaint.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to say it needed an extension of 10 working days. Its response was due on 11 April 2022 so its response was already 10 working days overdue,. The extension would make a response time of 20 working days which was not in line with its Complaints Policy.
Its response provided on 19 May 2022 was 26 working days out of time. Its definition of the complaint did not reflect the resident’s complaint. Furthermore, the brevity of the response demonstrated it had not carried out a thorough investigation.
The resident’s dissatisfaction was evident in her discussion with the landlord on 20 May 2022 when she asked for a formal stage 1 complaint response. It issued a second response on 13 June 2022. However it was 4 working days out of time and failed to acknowledge its previous complaint handling failure.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in providing an update on legal action. However it failed to demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigation into what the resident had been told previously, what had happened since and whether its response was reasonable. Therefore the resident could not be assured that it had taken her complaint seriously.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2022 to escalate her complaint. She said did not receive the stage 1 complaint until 12 July because it had been sent via her MP. Considering the resident made the escalation herself this was inappropriate. We have not seen evidence that the response was sent to the MP however, this was not disputed by the landlord.
On 17 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of her complaint. It confirmed it had been forwarded to the relevant team. While this was positive it was 2 working days outside its timescale of 5 working days.
An internal email of 14 August 2022 noted that the complaint of 19 May was closed. The landlord therefore concluded that the request to escalate was made outside of the 20 working day timescale.
This was inappropriate because it failed to consider there was a second stage 1 response dated 13 June 2022. Furthermore, it failed to consider the resident did not receive it until 12 July 2022. This meant the request to escalate was made on the nineteenth day and was therefore within time.
Its oversight caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed her MP on 25 September 2022 to try to resolve her complaint. They emailed the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 3 October. The landlord raised a stage 2 complaint on the same day.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the delay in raising the complaint. It said it would be addressed in its response which would be issued on 17 October 2022.
The landlord failed to provide its response on 17 October 2022 as promised. It also failed to update the resident about the delay. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed on 17 October to chase. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response. Therefore it missed an opportunity to apologise for the delay and manage the resident’s expectations around when she might expect the response.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 25 November 2022. It put right to some extent the failures of its stage 1 response and addressed the information provided to the resident about the legal action.
However, some of the information provided in its response was inaccurate which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It said that it had visited the resident’s property during March 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2022 to say this was incorrect. The landlord replied to apologise for its error and confirmed this was when the case was referred to its solicitor for review.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered £50 compensation for the delay in escalating the complaint. We do not consider this to be proportionate to the failures set out above. Therefore the landlord has been ordered to pay £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident to resolve her complaint. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
During our special investigation we identified a need for the landlord to improve its complaint handling. The landlord responded to say it had restructured its complaint handling process and increased the size of its complaint handling team. Consequently the process had greater “visibility and accountability.” Therefore it’s not been necessary to make a further order in this determination.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication about legal action against the resident’s neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident to see if she still wishes to pursue a reciprocal move. If so, it should write to her to set out its position.
3. If it has not already done so the landlord should arrange to inspect the resident’s property and the flooring in the property below. The outcome should be confirmed to the resident in writing with a time based action plan if appropriate.
4. If it has not already done so in the last 4 weeks the landlord should contact the resident to see if the noise above is ongoing. If so it should write to the resident to set outs its position in line with relevant policies and procedures. It should also include a time based action plan.
5. Pay the resident £500 compensation comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and disappointment caused by its communication failures about legal action against the resident’s neighbour. The landlord may deduct the compensation it offered if this has already been paid (it should confirm the amount).
  2. £50 for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s request to be moved.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.