Southern Housing (202330022)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330022

Southern Housing

6 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a house.
The resident lives at the property with her 3 dependent children. The resident and her children are neurodiverse.
The resident first reported difficulties with the neighbour in January 2023. This was not long after the neighbour moved in. These difficulties escalated over the course of the next 6 months, resulting in a threat of violence by the neighbour and the use of discriminatory language about the resident’s children based on their disabilities and gender identity.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from the neighbour on 31 August 2023, which the landlord treated as the stage 1 complaint. The landlord issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2023.
When the resident initially brought her complaint to us, she suggested the landlord should take action against the neighbour and resolve the ASB. The resident told us on 4 June 2023 that the neighbour had been charged with a hate related section 4a public order offence. The resident said the neighbour had pleaded guilty to this charge in February 2024 at court. By this time the neighbour had terminated their tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between January 2023 and December 2023. This being the date the resident first reported ASB about the neighbour, through to when the landlord’s complaint process was exhausted.

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

The resident first reported difficulties with the neighbour in January 2023. The resident said the neighbour was parking inconsiderately, had crashed into her car, and was giving her dirty looks. The landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining that the behaviour described was unlikely to meet the required threshold under its ASB policy. The landlord’s position was in line with its ASB policy, which said clashes of lifestyles, parking, personal differences, or unfriendly looks would not be considered as ASB.
However, it was positive that the landlord asked the resident nonetheless, to complete diary sheets and return these to it by 7 February 2023. This would have allowed it to assess the behaviour and determine whether the ASB threshold had been met. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, this would include behaviour such as verbal abuse, intimidation, harassment, hate crimes, threats of violence, or acts of physical violence.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 February 2023 explaining that it was closing the case as the resident had failed to provide it with any evidence or diary sheets. The resident did not challenge this, so it is reasonable to assume the resident accepted the landlord’s position.
The resident contacted the landlord again in April 2023 reporting that her house had been broken into. The resident suspected the neighbour had something to do with this. The landlord responded, in the absence of evidence, by instructing a third-party mediator to assist the resident and the neighbour with reconciling their differences. This shows that the landlord was trying to be supportive. We note that the landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord expects its residents to resolve minor disputes with their neighbours. Its ASB pamphlet suggests that it will consider early intervention such as mediation in support of this.
The third-party mediator communicated with the resident and the neighbour individually over the course of the next few months and tried to arrange a mutually convenient date for the mediation happen. It is understood that several mediation meetings were scheduled but were later cancelled. We were unable to determine from the available evidence, why the sessions kept being cancelled. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the landlord was at fault.
The resident told the landlord on 6 June 2023 that someone had made malicious reports to the royal society for the protection of animals, to social services, and to her children’s school. The resident again suspected the neighbour had something to do with this. But she volunteered no firm evidence to support her view.
The landlord’s internal communications from 12 June 2023 show that the landlord began considering the merits of opening a new ASB case and starting to gather evidence. This suggests the landlord recognised that difficulties between the parties were escalating and could require its intervention. This was encouraging.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2023, reporting that the neighbour had removed the fencing to their garden and had parked their vehicle on their lawn. The resident explained that she inadvertently blocked the neighbour’s vehicle in when returning home. She said the neighbour came out of her house screaming, shouting, and threatening to hit her and her vehicle with a hammer. This caused alarm and distress to the resident and her children, who fled into the property and feared to come back out.
The landlord contacted the resident 1 working day later, to discuss the recent events. This shows the landlord was treating the resident’s latest report with the attention it deserved. The resident explained during this conversation, that the neighbour was always sticking their fingers up at her. And had made discriminatory comments about her children based on their disabilities and gender identity. The resident explained the police had opened a case for hate crime and harassment because of this.
The landlord said it would pass the matter onto its ASB team, who would contact her by 5pm the following day. It was appropriate for the landlord to escalate the matter to its specialist ASB team given the nature of the latest reports. The landlord issued the resident with some diary sheets the same day for her completion and return. But there is no evidence the landlord’s ASB team contacted the resident within the timescale it had committed. This left the resident uncertain of the landlord’s intentions, which was unfair.
The landlord sought an update from the third-party mediator on 21 June 2023 who explained the mediation process had stalled and questioned if the landlord had been able to speak to the parties itself. The landlord contacted the neighbour the next day asking them to re-engage with the mediation process. The neighbour said they would do so if the mediation happened face to face. The landlord’s case notes indicate the landlord initially decided not to raise a new ASB case, as it felt mediation was still possible. While we accept that mediation can often be an effective and quicker way for residents to reconcile their differences, we would have expected the landlord to have opened a new ASB case, as the threshold for ASB had been met, and given the evident escalation in behaviour.
However, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by this decision, as the landlord quickly changed its view, after the resident reported a further hate incident involving the neighbour later the same day. It is understood the resident provided the landlord with some video footage taken of the neighbour during this incident. It was unfortunate that the video had no audio, so the landlord could not determine what was being said. However, the landlord commented in its case notes that the neighbour’s “demeanour was inappropriate”.
It was appropriate therefore that the landlord contacted the resident on 23 June 2023 to complete a risk assessment. This was in line with its ASB policy, which stated the landlord will carry out a risk assessment of the potential harm of the ASB on the person making a report. We can see that the landlord opened a new high risk ASB case on the basis of that risk assessment.
The landlord wrote to the resident later the same day, providing contact details for victim support. This was good practice and shows the landlord was being supportive. It also set out the actions agreed by the parties during the phone call. In summary:
1. The landlord agreed to provide the resident with fortnightly updates, to meet the neighbour, and to issue the neighbour with a “breach / banning letter”.
2. The resident agreed to use her smart phone to record further acts of aggression from the neighbour and to submit diary sheets in relation to any new incidents.
The landlord issued diary sheets to the resident for her completion and return on 26 June 2023. It spoke to the neighbour on 28 June 2023 to discuss the allegations and the evidence it had seen. It is unclear when the landlord issued the neighbour with the banning letter. But the evidence suggests a letter was sent, the purpose of which was to restrict the neighbour’s future contact with the resident. This shows that the landlord was progressing the case in accordance with the agreed action plan.
The resident told the landlord on 4 July 2023 there had been further incidents of intimidation which were impacting her children. She committed to sending reports about this via email to the landlord. She said she was still willing to mediate with the neighbour to try to resolve things. But suggested the neighbour had failed to engage in the process so far.
The resident contacted the landlord the next day, confirming the police would be interviewing the neighbour in relation to asection 4a public order offence, for hate crime. The landlord’s case notes state the police had received a video recording, with audio, of the neighbour makingcomments about her child’s gender identity. The resident said she wouldask the police to send a copy of the video to the landlord. The resident explained to us that this video had been sentdirectly to the police by another neighbour, so she was unable to provide the landlord with a copy of the videoherself.
The landlord did not contact the resident to provide the first fortnightly update, which was due on or around 7 July 2023, in line with the action plan. The resident was caused avoidable time and trouble chasing the landlord about this.
The resident told the landlord on 13 July 2023 that the police had arrested and bailed the neighbour for the section 4a public order offence. The resident asked what the landlord what it would do next in view of this information. The landlord initially said it would need to wait for the outcome of the police investigation so it “did not step on their toes”. A different member of the landlord’s staff told the resident on 17 July 2023 that it was likely to wait until the charge had been made and / or a conviction or caution was given before deciding on an appropriate course of action to be taken. The landlord’s advice was consistent and not unusual in the circumstances.
The landlord asked the resident to email any diary sheets she had completed, after noting she had mentioned further incidents with the neighbour. The resident emailed the landlord later the same day with some photographs of the neighbour’s vehicle. The landlord’s case notes reflect the photographs did not demonstrate that the resident’s vehicle had been blocked in, so provided appropriate advice to the resident. It is unclear what advice the landlord gave. But it was unlikely the landlord could have taken formal action against the neighbour based on evidence that was inconclusive.
It is unclear if the resident passed on the landlord’s contact details to the police as she previously committed. It was positive that the landlord proactively contacted the police on 19 July 2023 when the police did not make contact. The landlord asked the policeto disclose the action they were taking in relation to the neighbour. The landlord explained that following any conviction or caution, it could use this information to take any enforcement action it deemed was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord enquired with the resident on the same day whether she had been able to gather any photographs showing poor parking. The resident told the landlord she had tried to take photographs but had been met with abuse from the neighbour.
The resident reported the neighbour for swearing and shouting at her on 26 July 2023. She confirmed there was no closed-circuit television (CCTV) in the area to capture this.
The landlord and police exchanged several emails on 27 July 2023. The police explained that they were investigating a hate related section 4a public order offence against the neighbour, after receiving audio and visual evidence. They confirmed that the case had been passed for a charging decision by the CPS. The landlord explained that if the CPS were to authorise the charge, it could serve a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour, which it said was a sort of caution. But suggested the case was unlikely to progress to court if there were no further reports of ASB following issue of the notice. We note that the landlord issued a tenancy breach warning letter to the neighbour later the same day, which shows it was acting on the information it had been given. It would be usual practice for a landlord to issue such a warning to a resident prior to serving a notice of seeking possession.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 July 2023 offering the resident words of advice, after counter allegations were received from the neighbour about the resident. The resident responded the same day refuting the counter allegations. She committed to providing the landlord with pictures showing how close the neighbour was parking their vehicle to hers. However, there is no evidence that the resident sent any photographs to the landlord for it to assess. This would have limited the landlord’s ability to progress this matter.
The landlord’s ASB procedure stated that an ASB case may be closed if there have been no incidents for 2 weeks or more and there is no evidence to support the allegations. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 August 2023 in line with its procedure, explaining that in the absence of further evidence and / or a charge, it was likely the ASB case would close at the next ASB case review. In doing so, the landlord gave the resident fair warning of its intentions if evidence was not received.
The resident emailed the landlord in response, stating that she would see what evidence she could collate from her CCTV, dash camera, and mobile phone. She also committed to sending the landlord all the diary sheets she had completed. She asked the landlord to confirm if the case would close without the CPS making its charging decision.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2023 in response. The landlord clarified, if the CPS had not made a charging decision at the time of its next case review and there was no evidence of any further breaches, the case would close. It went on to say that it would reopen the case if the CPS decided to charge the neighbour, which seems fair. It encouraged the resident to return any new evidence she had, so this could be considered, which would have been in the resident’s best interests.
The police and landlord exchanged several emails on 23 August 2023. The police explainedtheir casefile had been submitted to the CPS but there was still work to be done before a charging decision could be made. The landlord suggested again that it could act independently of the police if it were able to view the video and audio evidence of hate incident under police investigation. But there was shared concern that acting independently of the police,could impact the ongoing police investigation and may escalate the situation between the parties. The landlord therefore decided that it should wait until the outcome of the CPS decision before considering next steps. This was a reasonable decision, based on what the landlord felt would lead to the most successful outcome in the circumstances of the case.
The resident emailed the landlord later the same day stating that she had sent an email with all of the evidence related to harassment by the neighbour. She said she would wait to hear back from the landlord after it had reviewed the evidence.
The landlord emailed the resident a week later, explaining that it had not received the email and evidence she had referenced. And therefore, in the absence of any further evidence, it would look to close the case. But repeated, in the avoidance of doubt, that it would reopen the case if the CPS decided to make a charge. It would have been reasonable to have given the resident the opportunity to check her evidence had been sent to the right email address and time to resend this, as she was so clear this had been sent. The landlord sent the formal ASB closure letter to the resident on 31 August 2023.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction during the landlord’s internal complaint process that the landlord decided to close the ASB case, when the issues with the neighbour had not been resolved. The landlord closed the case because it had not been provided with evidence showing there had been any incidents of ASB in the 2 weeks leading up to it closing the case. This was in line with its ASB procedure. But it could not say there had been no incidents, as the resident had clearly tried to send in evidence during that period. However, the resident was not significantly disadvantaged by the landlord’s decision to close the case, as it had committed to opening a new case if new incidents were reported. And it committed to reopening the same case if the CPS charged the neighbour. We note that the resident had sent no new evidence to the landlord prior to it issuing the stage 2 complaint response in December 2023.
The resident told the landlord in September 2023 that she had applied for an injunction against the neighbour, which would have afforded her and family some protection from the neighbour. The landlord received details of the CPS charging decision on or around 26 October 2023. The landlord issued a letter to the neighbour on this date, explaining the enforcement action it was proposing to take in the event they were convicted. We were unable to verify if the landlord reopened the ASB case as it indicated it might, from the available evidence. But the landlord’s actions show that it was being responsive to the evolving situation.
The landlord’s case notes state that it decided it was best to wait for the outcome of the trial before taking further action. It is unclear if the landlord made the resident aware of this at the time, which it ought to have done. The resident states that the trial date kept being moved and was not heard until February 2023. However, the neighbour had moved by the time of the court hearing, so there was no further action for the landlord to take.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction during the landlord’s internal complaint process, that the neighbour was able to raise counter complaints about her, when her ASB case against the neighbour was closed. We are unable to verify how the landlord was handling the neighbours reports of ASB about the resident. But we have seen no evidence to suggest the resident was prevented from reporting any new incidents of ASB about the neighbour.
The resident suggested during the landlord’s internal complaint process, that the landlord had given her conflicting information as to whether it was able to take action against the neighbour, independently of the police and CPS, regarding the hate related public order offence. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 complaint response, that the resident was confused as to whether it was able to take action prior to criminal proceedings being taken against the neighbour. It apologised if it had not made its position clear or managed her expectations about this. This shows that the landlord was taking responsibility for inadequacies in its communications.
It is evident that the situation with the neighbour was distressing for the resident and her family. While the landlord could have done more to manage the resident’s expectations, we do not find failing in the landlord’s decision to wait for the outcome of action being taken by the police and CPS, particularly given the neighbour had made counter allegations about the resident. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the merits of acting independently or waiting for the outcome of the criminal action. It made its decision based on what it thought would deliver the best outcome in the circumstances. The police did not indicate to the landlord that the resident and / or her children were in immediate danger or at risk.
Although the landlord signposted the resident to victim support at the outset of the case, there was little evidence that the landlord considered the ongoing impact of the situation upon the resident, after this. This is a concern given the case was hate based, with the subject of that hate being a child. The landlord missed opportunity to consider if there was any interim support the resident and her family might need, while it was waiting for the outcome of the CPS charging decision. It missed a further opportunity to consider the resident’s support needs when it decided to wait until the outcome of the criminal court hearing.
While the landlord did not uphold the complaint in its handling of the substantive matter, it did set out a comprehensive plan setting out the future direction of the case. This was good practice and would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations from there on.
The landlord did also recognise there were lessons it could take from the complaint and committed to sharing these learnings with its community safety team to improve service delivery. This was positive and mirrors some of the inadequacies we identified in our investigation. The landlord made several recommendations for improvement, including:
1. Its investigating teams to consider how information was communicated at the outset of a case concerning the actions it will take, expectations on outcomes, and the likely duration of an investigation.
2. Its investigating teams to ensure that communications are clear and explanations are provided where agreed actions change during an investigation.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was generally in line with its ASB policy and procedures. However, there were failings in the landlord’s communications and the landlord did not adequately explore the resident’s ongoing support needs or the support needs of her family. The landlord did identify that there were inadequacies in its communications and committed to addressing this. But it has not addressed the detriment that was caused to the resident by the failings we identified in our investigation.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation, which reflects the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the inadequacies we identified in the landlord’s communications. The landlord is also ordered to pay £100 compensation, in recognition the landlord’s failure to keep the resident’s support needs under review.
This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where there is evidence of failure in the service provided, which the landlord may not have appropriately acknowledged or fully put right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

According to the landlord’s complaint policy, it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints in 5 working days and will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints in 5 working days and will issue the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. If the landlord finds it needs an extension to these timescales, it will explain the reason for this and will agree a new response date.
The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction concerning the substantive matter of complaint on 31 August 2023. The landlord appropriately recognised this as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord did communicate with the resident concerning her dissatisfaction in a timely manner. But it did not send the formal complaint acknowledgement until 19 September 2023. This was 13 working days after the complaint was raised, so exceeded the expected response timescale under its policy. The landlord said it would issue the stage 1 complaint response by 3 October 2023.
The landlord did not issue the stage 1 complaint response on 3 October 2023 as it committed. It contacted the resident on 4 October 2023 advising that it needed a time extension, which was permitted under its policy. The landlord recognised that it had not issued the stage 1 complaint response within the timescale it had committed. It said it would address this within its complaint response. This shows the landlord was taking responsibility for its failing. It was agreed, between the parties, that the stage 1 complaint response would be issued by 6 October 2023.
The landlord emailed the resident again on 6 October 2023. The landlord said the full stage 1 complaint response was not ready, for which it apologised. It said its new target response date was 10 October 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2023 expressing dissatisfaction that she had not received the stage 1 complaint response as it had committed. This created avoidable inconvenience for the resident.
The landlord did not issue the stage 1 complaint response until 12 October 2023. This this was 17 working days after the formal stage 1 complaint acknowledgement. While this was strictly within the expected timescale allowed under its policy, the landlord’s complaint process was longer than it ought to have been due to the landlord’s delay to issue the stage 1 acknowledgment.
The landlord identified in the stage 1 complaint response that there had been inadequacies in its complaint handling which had impacted the resident. The landlord offered £80 compensation in recognition of its failure to provide a response within the expected timescale, for miscommunication, and for the resident’s time and trouble. The landlord’s offer was proportionate to the failings we identified.
The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 15 October 2023. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 18 October 2023, which was within the expected response timescale. The landlord explained that its complaint panel would review the complaint on 30 October 2023 and it would issue the stage 2 complaint outcome on 13 November 2023. We note that the landlord’s complaints policy states that residents can choose to attend the complaint review hearing if they want to, which we consider to be best practice.
The stage 2 complaint review hearing was not carried out on 30 October 2023 due to staff availability and the landlord did not issue a letter of extension, explaining that it needed more time.
The landlord sent the resident a meeting invitation for the complaint review hearing on 17 November 2023, arranged for 24 November 2023 at 3pm. It was unsurprising that the resident said she may have difficulties attending, given the meeting conflicted with school pick up time. The landlord could have reasonably foreseen this might be an issue for the resident, given she had children of school age and scheduled the hearing at a more appropriate time. The landlord should bear this in mind for future cases.
The stage 2 complaint hearing was carried out on 24 November 2023 in the resident’s absence. We note that the landlord said this was with the resident’s consent. The stage 2 complaint response was issued on 6 December 2023. This was 37 working days after the stage 2 acknowledgement and therefore exceeded the expected response timescale under its policy.
The landlord offered an additional £20 compensation at stage 2, for delays in its complaint handling during the stage 2 complaint investigation. It is unclear how the landlord arrived at this figure as the landlord’s compensation guidance states that “that service failures will be paid at £15 or £50 for complaint handling”.
As a final observation, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The resident pointed out in the stage 2 complaint, that she had identified various inaccuracies in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. By way of example, the landlord stated that it had offered to provide the resident with a video doorbell and that the resident had agreed to adjust her own CCTV equipment. The resident refuted this. The landlord recognised this as a point of complaint in its initial scoping letter to the resident. But it did not address this in the final stage 2 complaint response, which left this complaint point unanswered. This was a failing.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We would have made a finding of maladministration had the landlord not identified some failings and made some attempt to put things right.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay the £80 compensationit previously offered, in recognition of the failings it identified in its complaint handling at stage 1. The landlord is ordered to pay £100 compensation in recognition of the failings we identified at stage 2 in its complaint handling. This compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as set out above in this assessment.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified by this investigation. Its apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, published on our website.
The landlord is ordered to pay £380 compensation directly to the resident, which may be reduced to £280 if the landlord has already paid the compensation it previously offered. This compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £100 compensation, which reflects the distress and inconvenience to the resident by inadequacies identified in the landlord’s communications.
2. £100 compensation, which recognises the landlord’s failure to keep the resident’s support needs under review.
3. £80 compensation, which was the compensation that the landlord previously offered, in recognition of the failings it identified in its complaint handling at stage 1.
4. £100 compensation, in recognition of the failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage 2.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider a resident’s particular circumstances when scheduling a complaint review hearing, so that residents have reasonable opportunity to attend if they wish to.