Southern Housing (202413945)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413945

Southern Housing

15 August 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 concerns about:
1. The property condition following a mutual exchange.
2. A right of way.
3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of a 3-bedroom house with her partner and child. She is the sole tenant. The landlord assigned the property to her in June 2024 after a mutual exchange. The resident authorised her partner to act as her representative in bringing her complaint to us. For clarity we have referred to the resident and her representative as “the resident”.
The landlord completed an inspection of the property with the outgoing resident on 3 May 2024. On 25 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about the condition of the property. The resident reported the presence of dog faeces, cat urine, dead rats, glass, asbestos tiles, and damp. The resident also said she had experienced harassment from neighbours, including false accusations. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction the landlord had not told it that neighbours had a right of way across the rear of their property. The resident further complained to the landlord on 26 June 2024 about fleas in the property.
On 10 July 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response and said:
1. its inspection on 3 May 2024 was not in depth and it had been up to the resident to satisfy herself on the condition of the property and access rights, after viewing and making enquiries with neighbours
2. it did not identify any of the issues the resident complained of during the inspection on 3 May 2024 and the resident did not raise these when it met her on 27 June 2024
3. the resident accepted the property “as seen”.
4. it agreed to visit the property on 16 July 2024 to look at possible asbestos tiles, and damp and mould
5. it agreed to raise any jobs for subsequent work after the inspection
6. it was the resident’s responsibility to treat the property for fleas and rats
7. it had been up to the resident to discuss with the outgoing tenant and neighbours access requirements
8. neighbours required access to the rear of the property
9. as it had followed its policy and procedures on mutual exchange it did not uphold the complaint
Between August 2024 and December 2024 the resident reported to the landlord her neighbours had made threats, trespassed, damaged her garden gates and gnome, placed her bins upside down and littered, stopped her from leaving the property, played loud music and stolen from her.
The resident escalated the complaint on 4 March 2025 expressing dissatisfaction the landlord had not identified the issues she complained about at the inspection on 3 May 2024. The resident also felt the landlord had not addressed the ASB and misrepresented the rights of way. In March 2025 the resident reported to the landlord aggression and abuse from neighbours, a neighbour who allegedly threw large objects into a fish tank, and a smell of cannabis. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 April 2025 and said:
1. it reiterated its stage 1 response and confirmed it did not identify significant hazards in its inspection on 3 May 2024
2. the resident has not provided it with access to allow it to inspect and verify the stated hazards and so it could not deal with the mould or complete any repairs
3. it had not seen evidence the property was inhabitable
4. it had opened an ASB case and reviewed the evidence, but the video footage the resident provided did not show there was a level of risk or persistent ASB to justify enforcement action against neighbours
5. it explained what would amount to actionable ASB and agreed to investigate all new evidence
6. it understood the resident’s concerns about the right of way and had referred this to its legal team and agreed to update the resident on this
7. the resident had not provided it with evidence that the situation merited a move to alternative accommodation
8. the local authority has the responsibility to offer emergency housing to residents and so it invited the resident to contact them for this
9. it needed a completed form of authority from the resident to allow it to speak to third parties
10. it could not uphold the complaint or offer compensation, but agreed to review this if the resident provided evidence to support her complaint
The resident told us that she only spent 1 night in the property and has been living elsewhere since June 2024. The resident also said the landlord has not completed work to address the condition of the property, and the property still has rats. We understand from the resident and landlord that the landlord provided an update on the right of way on 20 June 2025. The resident told us there are no recent reports of ASB and it is not ongoing, but she is too frightened to return to the property except to occasionally pick up post. The resident also told this Service that the landlord has offered a management move and that she wants to move and to receive compensation for damaged belongings. She referred to a damaged sofa worth £3,000 and damage to a washing machine and cooker.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The resident has raised various issues, both with the landlord and with this Service, which did not form part of her formal complaint to the landlord concerning issues with the electricity, the garden, the roof sagging, a broken shower, skirting boards, holes in the wall and cracks in the roof. The resident also made a further complaint on 9 April 2025 about the landlord’s decision to issue a letter under its unacceptable behaviour policy and alleged discrimination. As these issues have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, they have not formed part of this investigation. This investigation deals with the issues in the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 8 April 2025.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said the situation had a detrimental effect on her and her household’s health. She specifically referred to having migraines, skin reactions and her and her daughter having panic attacks. Her partner also disclosed the situation affected his mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider compensation for general distress and inconvenience experienced by a resident if there are failures by a landlord.

The property condition following mutual exchange

The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states it will inspect and assess the condition of the property and identify any necessary repairs. It adds it will complete major repairs or deal with safety issues it is responsible for prior to completion of the mutual exchange. The policy specifies that residents accept the condition of the property on completion. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy required it to deal with any non-emergency repairs as soon as possible and at a time that suits the resident. If the resident is not at home, the landlord needs to attempt to contact them by telephone and can leave a card where it cannot make contact. This policy adds the landlord can cancel the repair if the resident has not responded within 7 days.
The resident’s tenancy states that if the resident is away from the property for more than 4 weeks the resident must provide details of who can provide access to the property during this absence. The landlord provided us with a leaflet stating that residents are responsible for pest control unless their tenancy agreement states otherwise. This replicates the information on its website. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not create any obligation on the landlord to deal with pests. It creates an obligation on the resident to allow the landlord access to complete repairs, during reasonable times and with the landlord giving 24-hours’ notice.
The landlord’s damp and mould procedure states it will inspect any properties within 10 working days of receiving a report of damp or mould. It must create an action plan and communicate any remedial work and complete works within 6 weeks or escalate the case. This escalation includes a consideration of the barriers to the landlord completing work, including access, and possible solutions. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s. 9A and 10, creates an implied legal obligation for the landlord to provide a property which is fit for human habitation. This includes being free from hazards caused by damp, pests, or asbestos.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a detailed record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also improve the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We consider the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 June 2024 about the condition of the property. The landlord’s pre-exchange checklist did not reveal any of the issues the resident raised. However, as the issues related to the habitability of the property it was important for the landlord to inspect the property to assess any potential hazards. On 27 June 2024 the landlord offered to inspect and raise jobs for damp, mould, and asbestos, but said the resident did not take this offer up. The resident acknowledged on 1 July 2024 that the landlord’s surveyor made contact about an asbestos survey, although this was in the context of a roof replacement which caused the resident confusion. The landlord’s offers and attempts to arrange surveys were in line with its damp and mould procedure and responsive repairs policy. Although the resident reported fleas and rats at the property in June 2024 the landlord was under no obligation to deal with these under the resident’s tenancy agreement or responsive repairs policy. On 11 July 2024 the landlord agreed, on a discretionary basis, to raise a job to treat the property for fleas. This was because the resident had not dealt with the fleas, and it said it could not complete other inspections until the fleas had been treated. The landlord completed these treatments on 16 July 2024 and 7 August 2024.
The landlord’s action in completing flea treatments showed a willingness to deal with the resident’s concerns. The landlord told the resident it would inspect the property on 16 July 2024 along with pest control, but it has not provided a copy of its inspection report. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably on this day to consider the other issues the resident raised. While it had told the resident that she needed to treat the property for fleas and rats it acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach in offering to treat the property for fleas.
After the landlord treated the property for fleas it subsequently attempted to visit the property. It attempted to do this on 19 August 2024 and 28 August 2024 but was unable to gain access. It said it left cards on both occasions in line with its responsive repairs policy, although it is unclear if the landlord called before it left a card on the later visit. We have seen the resident was unable to attend the property at agreed times in her communication with the landlord logged on 12 September 2024. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 3 October 2024 when it said it was able to gain access. It recommended an upgrade of the bathroom and kitchen fan and treatment of black spot mould in 1 bedroom, the lounge, and by the front door but found the property habitable.
We note the resident disagreed that the condition of the property was habitable and felt she was homeless as she could not reasonably occupy the property. However, the landlord had no obligation under its management move procedure to offer alternative accommodation in this situation. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the council for emergency accommodation. This was in line with its management move procedure. However, it took the landlord 5 months to do this from when the resident first requested emergency accommodation (26 June 2024 to 25 November 2024), and this was an unreasonable length of time.
The landlord told us it has been unable to complete the recommended work from October 2024 because it could not gain access to the resident’s property. The landlord needed to request access by making appointments in line with its responsive repairs policy. The resident also has an obligation to allow the landlord access. We note the resident told the landlord that she was too scared or unwell to return to the property to allow access at times. We do not question the resident’s reasons for this position, but this contributed to delays in the landlord being able to resolve the issues, for example in August 2024. We are also mindful the resident has an obligation to nominate someone else to provide access where they are unable to grant access and are absent.
Nevertheless, for the resident’s obligation to provide access to apply the landlord must first request access, giving notice. The landlord has not provided evidence of what attempts it made to request access from 3 October 2024 to complete the outstanding work. We note that the resident offered access on 16 January 2025, but the landlord’s evidence does not show this was for the reasons the resident complained of in June 2024. Therefore, we cannot be satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps between 3 October 2024 and 16 January 2025 to request access and arrange an appointment specifically to complete the work it agreed to. There was also another gap in the landlord’s records between 16 January 2025 and 13 March 2025 in the landlord requesting access to deal with the work to treat the mould. The gaps meant the landlord has been unable to show it dealt with repairs effectively or in a timely way and this likely contributed to delays.
Although the landlord explained it had access issues it has not provided evidence of each occasion it requested this and of the resident’s response. It was also under a duty to consider how to access the property under its damp and mould procedure when it could not gain access. This is because it was unable to resolve the damp within 6 weeks of the initial damp report (25 June 2024). The procedure required it to consider how it might overcome this barrier. It was not until 13 March 2025 that the landlord suggested a possible solution and it was unreasonable it did not explore this sooner.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to treat the property for fleas, and it was reasonable of it to offer initial inspections for damp and asbestos. It arranged an inspection on 16 July 2024 and tried to inspect in August 2024 as a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint. Although these steps were appropriate, we have found the following failures because:
1. we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably to consider the issues the resident raised when it inspected the property on 16 July 2024
2. it took an unreasonable length of time (5 months) to signpost the resident to the council for emergency accommodation
3. we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably between 3 October 2024 to 16 January 2025 to obtain access to complete the outstanding work
4. there was an unreasonable gap between 16 January 2025 to 13 March 2025 in it requesting access to deal with the work to treat mould
5. there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord considering how it might overcome the access barrier
These failures amount to maladministration which likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. We have therefore made an award of £150 compensation to reflect this in line with our remedies guidance. This guidance allows for awards of this amount where a landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident. This finding and award considers the fact that the resident contributed to some access issues. As the damp work and asbestos survey are outstanding, we have also made orders in relation to these. We have also made an order for the landlord to inspect the property. While the resident wanted the landlord to compensate her for damaged belongings it was reasonable of the landlord to defer considering this until it had evidence of the damage and it could assess this. As we have not seen the resident provided the landlord with this evidence, we have made an order for it to consider this if the resident provides evidence.
The Ombudsman published a report in May 2024 about the landlord following a special wider investigation in which we found multiple systemic failures that were affecting its residents. This included issues with its record keeping practises in relation to inspections and repairs. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes to address this. As the landlord is involved in ongoing improvement work, we have therefore not made any orders which would duplicate the recommendations contained in the special wider investigation. Nevertheless, the landlord should consider if there are any lessons it can learn from this complaint.

The right of way

The resident complained about the neighbours’ use of a path and exercise of a right of way through her rear garden. The resident explained this affected her sense of security on 25 June 2024. While we note the pre-exchange inspection report did not disclose a right of way over the resident’s property, this was not, and nor was it intended to be, a comprehensive inspection. We have not seen evidence that the landlord represented the inspection as capable of revealing every right affecting the property or that the resident asked it about these before the exchange. These rights were only discoverable by an inspection, reasonable enquiries with the departing tenant and neighbours, or by consulting the title deeds. Therefore, it would be reasonable for the resident to satisfy themselves on any access or rights of way by these means before completing the exchange.
The landlord told the resident’s MP on 31 July 2024 that the title deeds did not evidence a right of way, and the use of the resident’s garden must be by “local arrangement between neighbours”. The landlord added as it had not given permission for this the ‘right’ was unenforceable unless it saw evidence to support its existence. The landlord told the resident’s MP on 10 September 2024 that it offered to write to the resident’s neighbours to explain this, but the resident declined. It was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the right of way and respond to the resident’s concerns, including offering to write to the neighbours.
Equally it was reasonable of the landlord to revisit this in March 2025 by referring the matter to its legal team after it received contrary evidence from a neighbour asserting a right of way. It was reasonable of the landlord to promise to update the resident as soon as it had a definitive answer from its legal team. It provided an update on 11 and 15 April 2025. While it told the resident it hoped to have a final decision by the end of May 2025 it did not share this until 20 June 2025. This was 15 working days from when it said it hoped to have a final decision, but there is no evidence the resident experienced a detriment during this period. Therefore, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the right of way. It acted reasonably and provided explanations to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

It is evident this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to reports of ASB. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the acts the resident reported occurred or whether they amounted to ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of alleged ASB were in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it may consider intimidation and harassment, including verbal abuse or threats of violence as ASB. It adds that if it decides a report is not ASB it will follow its good neighbourhood management procedure instead. The landlord’s ASB policy states it:
1. will take appropriate action to investigate ASB reports including contacting witnesses or alleged perpetrators
2. can take informal action, like issuing warnings, asking a perpetrator to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement or mediation
3. will work with other agencies to deal with ASB and signpost residents for support
4. will complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the resident
5. will take action proportionate to the seriousness, effect and frequency of the alleged behaviour, the risk to a resident and the available evidence.
The landlord’s good neighbourhood management procedure did not come into effect until June 2025 which was after the landlord’s final response. However, it operated a neighbourhood management policy that was effective at the time the resident complained. This required the landlord to work with agencies to keep neighbourhoods free from ASB. The resident complained about neighbours trespassing and acting in an intimidating way, including making reports about her. The landlord said it considered the evidence between 7 and 17 August 2024 and concluded there was insufficient evidence of ASB. It was reasonable of the landlord to ask the resident to provide it with evidence in line with its ASB policy and following this it:
1. completed a risk assessment with the resident on 22 November 2024
2. agreed an action plan with the resident on 28 November 2024
3. offered mediation on 6 January 2025
4. agreed to work with the police over their investigation of harassment on 13 March 2025
5. sent a link to the resident on 18 March 2025 to victim support and another organisation offering support
6. held a partnership meeting with the police on 25 March 2025
7. interviewed neighbours (acknowledged by the resident on 31 March 2025)
These steps were all reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and the neighbourhood management policy in effect at the time the resident complained. The landlord explained between 6 January and 8 April 2025 that:
1. it was unable to conclusively determine there was ASB due to a conflicting version of events and the lack of evidence
2. the evidence the resident provided did not meet the threshold to justify formal legal action against the neighbours
3. it reviewed the videos the resident provided it with, but this did not substantiate there was a risk
We acknowledge the resident wanted the landlord to take formal legal action against her neighbours and disputed the landlord’s findings. As explained our role is not to determine if ASB occurred, rather it is to assess if the landlord appropriately applied its policies. The landlord’s ASB policy required it to assess if the reports amounted to ASB and to take proportionate action. We are satisfied the landlord assessed the evidence and explained to the resident its reasons for not taking enforcement action. As the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and acted reasonably we find no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the property condition following a mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a right of way.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. explain to the resident in writing its options for obtaining access to carry out works and explaining the consequences of it being unable to
2. contact the resident to agree a date to inspect the property condition (including for asbestos) and share a copy of this with the resident and this Service. The landlord should prepare a schedule of work within 2 weeks of the inspection of any required work, with dates of when it will require access and with an estimate start and finish date for the work
3. agree with the resident a date or dates to complete the recommended damp works in the report of 3 October 2024
4. explain to the resident where she can obtain help with pest control
5. pay the resident directly (without deductions) £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the property condition following the mutual exchange
6. in line with its final response consider whether it should pay the resident compensation or make a referral to its public liability insurer for any alleged damage to the resident’s belongings, on receipt of evidence from the resident of the damage. The landlord should write to the resident with its decision
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, if it is unable to it must provide reasons and agree an extension in advance.