Southern Housing (202403970)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403970

Southern Housing

29 July 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:
1. Request to be rehoused.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Reports of issues with communal entrances to the block.
4. Reports of issues with parking.
5. Request it changed her name on its systems.
6. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. It is aware that the resident has mental health issues.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2024 about several matters. These included, outstanding repair issues, a rehousing request she had previously made and ASB that she said her neighbour was causing. She told the landlord she had asked it to change her name on its systems in 2022 and was unhappy that it had not done so.
We contacted the landlord on 30 September 2024 as the resident told us she had not received a response. The landlord told us that the e mail address the resident had sent her correspondence to had not been in use since 2022. Due to this it had not received her complaint. It agreed to log the complaint at this point and respond accordingly.
During communication with the landlord on 21 October 2024, the resident asked it to investigate issues she had with parking as part of her complaint. She said there had been confusion in its process of allocating her a parking bay and due to this she had received parking tickets which she was unhappy about. She told the landlord although it had allocated her a parking bay it had not issued a fob so she could access the car park.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024. It recognised that there had been service failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB and some repairs. It said it could not locate the name change documents the resident had returned and apologised for this. It told her that it was unable to investigate some matters within the complaint due to time frames involved, as well as previous determinations of them by this Service. It offered the resident a total of £220 in compensation which it broke down as:
1. £30 for its failure to review and update the resident on outstanding repair work.
2. £125 for the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repair work.
3. £15 for service failures relating to ASB reports.
4. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble relating to her name change on its system.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 14 November 2024. She was unhappy with its response and said a number of the issues remained outstanding.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 8 January 2025. It reiterated its position on several issues discussed at stage 1. It said it had found further failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and apologised. It recognised a delay in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request and offered her further compensation of £300 which it broke down as:
1. £50 for its delay in acknowledging the complaint at stage 2.
2. £250 for the service failures identified in its response to reports of ASB.
This brought the landlord’s total compensation offer to the resident to £520.
The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She is seeking increased compensation, for the landlord to record her name change and for the ASB to be resolved.

Assessment

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Request to be rehoused.
Paragraph 42.l of the scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
This Service made a determination in a previous report (reference 201911202) dated 25 October 2023 which considered the landlord’s response following complaints from the resident relating to her request to be rehoused.
As this matter has already been determined by us we are unable to reconsider it. The matter is therefore not within the scope of this report. The resident has told us that recent issues have occurred which have given her cause for concern relating to her safety. Due to this she wants to be rehoused. As she told us that she had not informed the landlord of these issues we have encouraged her to do so and made a relevant recommendation below.

Scope of investigation

The resident said that she had been reporting ASB by her neighbour, to the landlord for 10 years. While we do not dispute this, we are unable to consider this timeframe. Given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. They could then progress these issues to us in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are unhappy with how a landlord responds.
The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from January 2023 leading up to its final response on 8 January 2025. Any events prior to January 2023 and following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.
Our previous determination of 25 October 2023 (mentioned above) included the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over parking issues. On 21 October 2024 the resident asked the landlord to consider new parking matters that had arisen, as part of her complaint. This investigation therefore, will only focus on evidence relating to parking matters from October 2023 up to the landlord’s final response on 8 January 2025. Any events prior to this or following the landlord’s final response are mentioned for context only.

Reports of ASB

The landlord has adopted the Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB, which is conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause:
1. Harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of a robust ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
When considering the evidence provided in this case it is apparent that there have been failures by the landlord to keep robust records. This has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events and whether some of the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable. Our investigation has therefore focussed on the evidence available to determine this complaint.
As highlighted in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, it is vitally important that landlord’s keep detailed records of all actions taken. This allows the landlord to account for its actions and decisions to residents and this Service, where required.
A landlord has 2 main duties when it receives a report of ASB. The first is to gather evidence and undertake a proportionate investigation. The second is to balance that evidence and decide what action it should take. Our role is to determine if it investigated fairly and took all the action it could.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 April 2023 to report noise from her upstairs neighbour. She said there was loud music and banging throughout the night which was disturbing her.
The landlord’s ASB policy says upon receiving a report of ASB it will open a case, conduct a risk assessment and respond to the complainant within 5 working days. It will agree an action plan and provide an update on the case every 15 working days.
There is no evidence that the landlord conducted any of these steps upon receiving the reports of ASB from the resident in April 2023. It called her 10 working days later, on 12 May 2023 to discuss the issue. This was outside of the timescales set out in its policy and its records do not indicate what action it took in response. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns in line with its policy.
The resident reported further instances of noise from her neighbour to the landlord on 4 October 2023. It was positive that the landlord opened a new ASB case at this point and told the resident it would investigate the issue. Although there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment or action plan, it wrote to all residents living in the block on 10 October 2023. It warned residents about noise levels and said that it had received reports of noise nuisance.
On 29 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that there was screaming, banging and loud noise coming from her upstairs neighbour. She said the noise continued throughout the day and night. When she had approached her neighbour to discuss this, she said they had become aggressive and abusive.
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report or contacted the resident until 2 months later on 29 April 2024. This was significantly outside of the timescales set out in its policy. A management review of the case took place which highlighted its failure to take action and prompted contact with the resident. Its lack of communication and failure to follow its ASB policy likely left the resident feeling distressed and unsupported. It acknowledged and addressed this failing in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident continued to report instances of ASB via the noise app it had provided to her between June and September 2024. There is no record of it contacting her during this time until it opened a new ASB case on 9 September 2024. In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024, it noted that the resident had provided “over 300” recordings. It arranged to interview the perpetrator regarding the issue on 19 September 2024 however, records indicate that they failed to attend this appointment. Due to this the landlord noted it would be taking appropriate action.
In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024, the landlord said that it was considering the next steps to resolve the issues. Given it had been over 6 weeks since its failed interview attempt it would have been reasonable for it to set out what these would be. The resident had demonstrated by the number of recordings submitted that the issue was a major concern for her and the landlord was aware that the problem was longstanding. Due to this it would have been appropriate for it to set out a plan of action in line with its ASB policy and provide timescales to the resident in its response.
It was positive that in its stage 1 response the landlord apologised and offered redress to the resident for its failure to follow its policy upon her report of ASB made on 29 February 2024. Its response, however failed to recognise the extent of its failures to follow its ASB policy as discussed above. The matter was outstanding, and it offered no action plan or timescales to provide clarity to the resident on what would happen next.
The landlord’s records indicate that it carried out an investigation of the resident’s ASB case upon the issue of its stage 1 response. It recognised that it had failed to follow its ASB policy on several occasions. It noted that it had not issued correspondence such as acknowledgment and action plan letters, nor contacted the resident within the timescales set out in its policy. It appropriately set out action it would take to address this such as agreeing an action plan with the resident, interviewing the perpetrator and making referrals to external agencies that could assist the resident.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it contacted the resident to agree its action plan or if it carried out all other actions it had highlighted. It wrote to her on 3 December 2024 to advise that it had spoken to the perpetrator regarding the issue and offered mediation as a means for resolution. It said that it had ensured rugs were laid down in the neighbouring property to try and reduce the noise. It was appropriate that it said that it would continue to seek a solution to the issue and would keep the resident updated.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 8 January 2025, it recognised and apologised for the failings it had identified in reviewing the ASB case. Although it detailed the action it had agreed to take since its stage 1 response, including referring the resident to external agencies and interviewing the perpetrator, it did not clarify if it had completed these actions. It is important to note that, although the resident has not disputed the events discussed in the response, we have not seen evidence of each event mentioned. When assessing its response, we have considered if its overall approach was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
We welcome the fact the landlord revised its compensation offer in its final response to try and put right its evident failings. It is our opinion, however, that its offer of £265 in compensation failed to recognise the level of distress caused to the resident with the matter continuing for over 20 months and remaining outstanding upon the issue of its final response. Its responses did not set out timescales for action to take place, which given the delays the resident had already experienced, likely left her feeling frustrated. It did not recognise in its responses that the effects of its failings were compounded by the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident has advised this Service that the ASB issues with her neighbours are ongoing. We welcome the fact that due to this the landlord has offered to fit carpet in the neighbouring property to attempt to resolve the matter. We have ordered the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident detailing the next steps it will take, along with timescales, so that the resident’s expectations are appropriately managed.
Our remedies guidance provides for compensation in the range of £100 to £600 for situations where there was failure by a landlord that adversely affected the resident causing distress and inconvenience. We have therefore made an order for it to pay further compensation of £200. We are satisfied that this, along with its agreed action mentioned above puts things right for the resident.

Issues with communal entrances to the block.

In her complaint to the landlord the resident said that there had been issues with the communal front door and gate dating back to 2019. She said they were regularly damaged and required frequent repair. She stated that due to this, the landlord had previously agreed to refund some of the service charge she paid towards them, however it had not done so. She told the landlord that issues with the door had not been resolved and the entrances were regularly faulty.
In its stage 1 response the landlord recognised that there had been ASB issues that had contributed to the front door entry system being vandalised. It said it had worked to address these issues to reduce the likelihood of the door being damaged and would continue to monitor the situation. This was reasonable and showed its understanding of the issue.
The landlord also noted in its response that it was unable to find a history of reported repairs to the front door. It said its contractor had recently inspected the door and found it to be working correctly. This was reasonable and demonstrates that it investigated its repairs history alongside conducting checks to confirm that the door was operational at the time of its response.
In both its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord set out that the issue relating to a service charge refund dating back to 2019 was outside of its complaint policy timeframe. Due to this it said it was unable to consider it in its response. Given the time that had elapsed its response was appropriate. It was also in line with our Complaint Handling Code which states that a landlord may exclude complaints where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.

Parking Issues

On 16 October 2023 the resident and landlord signed a parking licence which allocated the resident access to a parking bay for a weekly charge. A parking management company monitors the car parks for adherence to the parking licences and issues parking tickets where contraventions to these occur.
On 21 October 2024 the resident told the landlord that there had been confusion over where it had permitted her to park. Due to this she had received parking tickets which she wanted the landlord to cancel. She said that she had not been issued with a fob to access the car park and wanted this investigated as part of her complaint.
In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024 the landlord said the resident had previously told it that she felt vulnerable walking to her allocated bay due to its distance from her property. Therefore, it had agreed that she could park in the visitors’ bay, located outside of her block if it was empty. It said it had notified its parking management company of this arrangement. This was reasonable action for it to take and demonstrated a recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It said it would contact her by 11 November 2024 to issue a new fob to allow access to the car park.
Upon acknowledging the resident’s escalation request on 22 November 2024, the landlord noted that she was unhappy with its stage 1 response to the parking issues and had not received a fob as agreed. In its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025 it failed to comment on any issues relating to the parking matter. This was inappropriate given it had agreed to take them into consideration and was aware that the resident remained dissatisfied with its previous response.
The landlord’s failure to address the parking issues in its stage 2 response meant it missed an opportunity to provide clarity to the resident on the situation. This caused confusion for her as reflected in her correspondence to the landlord on 19 February 2025 where she requests that it addresses the parking matters missed from its final response.
It is unclear from the evidence what date the landlord gave permission for the resident to park in the visitors bay and when it told the parking management company about this arrangement. Due to this we are unable to establish if the parking tickets that the resident received resulted from a miscommunication regarding this arrangement. The resident has told us that she now has a working fob to the car park but there is confusion over where she is permitted to park. Thus we have made relevant orders below to provide clarity on the matter.
Considering the above failings, we have made orders to put things right for the resident in this case.

Name change request

The landlord contacted the resident on 23 November 2022 to say that Universal Credit had brought to its attention the name on her rent account differed from that on her Universal Credit claim. Due to this her rent payments had stopped. It asked her to contact Universal Credit regarding the issue as well as completing and returning to it a name change form along with evidence of her name change.
The landlord’s records indicate that the resident provided documentation to it on 30 November 2022 as requested. This included a change of name deed certificate along with a form provided by the landlord detailing the name change. On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking it to confirm it had received the information. There is no evidence that it responded to her.
As part of her complaint on 25 January 2024 the resident said despite providing the relevant documents the landlord had not updated her name on its systems. She wanted it to address this.
In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024, the landlord apologised for its failure to respond to the resident’s name change request. It said although she had informed it that she had returned the required documents, it was unable to find them. It asked her to complete and return a change of name form along with evidence of her name change. It offered the resident £50 in compensation which it stated was for her time and trouble spent on the issue.
In its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025 the landlord said it was unable to review the issue with the resident’s name change request as it had addressed it in its previous response. It has since told us that it has not changed the resident’s name on its systems as she has not returned the relevant forms issued with its previous response. It has however provided these documents to us as evidence. This includes the completed name change form along with a copy of the resident’s change of name deed. Due to this we have ordered it to review its records and update the resident’s name on its systems.
The resident had advised us that she believes the landlord’s failure to change her name led to rent arrears occurring on her account around November 2022. This was due to its effect on her Universal Credit claim discussed above. There is however no evidence that the resident raised the issue with the landlord until January 2024. It is imperative that residents raise issues within a reasonable time of them occurring to allow landlords the opportunity to conduct a thorough assessment and respond.
We recognise that detriment to the resident has occurred due to the landlord’s failure to update her name. Its record keeping and communication on the issue were poor and the issue remains outstanding over 2 years after her request. Due to this it is our opinion that its offer of £50 compensation was inadequate and did not fully recognise its failings. Thus, we have made orders below for it to pay increased compensation and take specific action. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Associated complaint

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. At either stage, if the response cannot be completed within these timescales, the resident will be notified to inform them of the progress of their complaint and when they will expect a full response. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) timescales.
The resident sent her original complaint by email to the landlord on 25 January 2024. We contacted it on 30 September 2024 as the resident told us it had not responded. It said it would respond to the complaint from this date.
In its stage 1 response on 4 November 2024 the landlord said that the email the resident had sent her original complaint to was no longer in use and therefore it had not received the complaint. It appropriately provided its current contact details. It was reasonable that the landlord explained that it had tested the email address used by the resident and had received a ‘bounce back’ message stating the message had not been delivered.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 14 November 2024, however due to an admin error this was not passed to the landlord’s complaints team until 21 November 2024. This meant it acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 one day later than the timescales set out in its policy.
It was appropriate that in its stage 2 response on 8 January 2025 the landlord apologised for its delay in escalating the complaint and explained the reason for this. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay.
The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable given the delay. Its compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused is outside our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with communal entrances to the block.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with parking.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request it changed her name on its systems.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress prior to investigation which, in our opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and must provide evidence of its compliance:
1. Pay to the resident the sum of £665 broken down as follows:
  1. £465 (this includes the £265 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £50 for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with parking.
  3. £150 (this includes the £50 previously offered if not already paid) for its failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s request it changed her name on its systems.
  4. This payment must be paid directly to the resident and not to her rent account.
2. Contact the resident to clarify where she is permitted to park.
3. Contact the resident to agree an action plan in relation to her ASB case. This should include the timescales in which actions are to be completed.
4. Change the resident’s name on its systems. It may refer to the documents it has provided to us as evidence for the necessary information to do this.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to:
1. Discuss with her rehousing options that she may explore, including clarification around her inclusion on its management move list.
2. Confirm its position on rent arrears present on her account and if these resulted from its failure to update her name in a timely fashion.