Southern Housing (202427723)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427723

Southern Housing

19 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about antisocial behaviour (ASB) and noise nuisance.
2. Request for a housing transfer.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She resides in a studio flat in a scheme for older or retired residents.
The alleged perpetrator, and the subject of the resident’s reports about ASB, is the resident’s neighbour. The neighbour lives in the flat below the resident.
The resident says she has experienced harassment and noise disturbance from the neighbour since she moved into the property in 2017. This included an incident in which she said the neighbour angrily confronted her in a communal area. She feels the neighbour monitors her whereabouts in the scheme. She also feels they use an instrument to cause deliberate noise nuisance throughout the night. She describes this as a low-level vibration or humming sound. The resident has reported these issues to the landlord over the years and described them as having significant impact on her mental wellbeing.
In November 2023 the resident reported harassment and noise nuisance from her neighbour. She said the neighbour had put letters through her door and rang her doorbell, despite the landlord having previously told them not to contact her. She reported ongoing noise disturbance throughout the night and said the neighbour continued to monitor her movements. The landlord opened an ASB case but closed it on 31 January 2024, concluding there was insufficient evidence.
On 3 July 2024 the resident reported further instances of ASB. She said the neighbour was deliberately positioning themself in communal areas and watching her in a hostile manner. She described an instance in which the neighbour threw a liquid out of their window as the resident passed. On another occasion, they approached her and told her a “shock was coming her way”.
On 3 December 2024 the resident formally complained to the landlord. She felt the landlord had not responded appropriately to her long-standing reports of abuse and harassment by her neighbour. She asked that it move her to a safer environment.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 10 January 2025. The landlord concluded it had investigated her reports of ASB in line with its procedure. However, it acknowledged it had delayed in contacting her and opening an ASB case following her report on 3 July 2024. It apologised and offered her £25 compensation in recognition of this.
The resident escalated her complaint on 12 January 2025. She said it had not considered her reports of ASB prior to July 2024. Nor how the issues had impacted her. She also provided a letter from her doctor on 28 January 2025 stating the experience was causing her stress and anxiety and she was struggling to sleep.
The landlord responded at the second and final stage of its complaints process on 17 March 2025. It said it could only consider issues that had occurred in the 12 months leading up to her complaint. However, it acknowledged it should have explained this in its initial response. It also accepted it had not addressed her request to move. It said it could not offer a move as an outcome of the complaints process. It offered an additional £100 for its failure to explain this in its initial response. However, it was satisfied it had reviewed the actions it had taken in response to her reports of ASB.
The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. She reports ongoing noise disturbance which she says continues to impact her wellbeing. She would like the landlord to move her.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident reported that the ASB and noise disturbance has impacted her health and caused her stress. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the impact of the landlord’s actions on her health as this is not within our remit or expertise. If she wants to explore this further, she can seek legal advice and pursue an outcome through the courts.
The resident said she had experienced issues related to ASB for over 7 years. While do not refute this, we encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, while the issues are live, and at least within 12 months of the issues occurring. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. For fairness, the focus of this investigation will therefore relate to the resident’s reports of ASB from November 2023 onwards. This is just over a year before she made her complaint.
When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not our role to reach a decision on whether ASB occurred. Instead, we consider whether the landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the ASB reports. We will therefore focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures and followed good practice.

Reports of ASB and noise nuisance

The landlord adopts the ‘Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014’ definition of ASB, as being behaviour that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress. Or that can cause nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to their occupation of residential premises.
The landlord sets out its procedure for dealing with antisocial behaviour in its ASB policy. The policy says that on receipt of an ASB report, it will discuss what happened with the resident. It will carry out a risk assessment to identify the risks to them. It will respond to high-risk cases within 1 working day and all other cases within 5 working days. It will agree an action plan with the resident, provide them with regular updates, inform them when closing the case, and explain its reasons for closure.
The landlord can also deal with issues under its good neighbourhood management (GNM) procedure if it does not consider the issue to be ASB, or where it considers this the most effective way of resolving the issue. It may use this for new and emerging issues, or where the nuisance is not intentional. It will follow the same process but will typically only complete a risk assessment for reports investigated under its ASB policy.
In response to the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance in November 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case and completed a risk assessment. It categorised the risk as high. However, the ASB team later said the matter did not meet the threshold for an ASB case and downgraded the risk level to medium.
The landlord’s internal notes suggest they did so on the basis there was no evidence the neighbour was intentionally causing noise. They said its surveyor had previously inspected and concluded the noise was due to the structure of the building. They said there had been no recent instances of aggression or harassment and both parties had previously declined mediation. They suggested the local housing team monitor and refer the resident to support services.
However, the scheme manager noted tensions had recently escalated. They verified they had witnessed the neighbour monitoring the resident’s movements and said the neighbour had previously admitted posting a letter through the resident’s door.
Regardless of whether the landlord considered the issue under its ASB procedure, GNM procedure, or otherwise, it had a responsibility to act to de-escalate tensions. The situation had recently been exacerbated, the scheme manager had corroborated some of the resident’s concerns, and the resident had outlined the impact the situation was having on her mental wellbeing.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 December 2023 which was 8 working days after she had reported concerns. The landlord’s policy notes it will respond within 5 working days to cases assessed as low or medium risk, and to reports dealt with under its GNM policy, so this constituted a delay.
Following this call, the officer requested that it re-open the ASB case but there was an internal debate about whether this was necessary. On 2 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed it had opened an ASB case. It also outlined an action plan. Actions for the landlord included reviewing diary sheets, completing a door knock in the area, scheduling a visit to the neighbour, and leading on any multi-agency referrals. The resident submitted diary sheets in early January 2024 detailing night time noise.
However, on 31 January 2024 the landlord notified the resident it was closing the case, citing insufficient evidence. The notes on its internal system stated it had opened the case in error and closed it.
The landlord took some reasonable actions during this period, such as sending the resident diary sheets to collate evidence and directing her to support services. It also contacted the resident to assure her it had previously inspected the property and said it believed the noise was caused by structure of the building.
However, there is no evidence it completed actions outlined on the action plan or investigated her concerns, and it was slow to open an ASB case. It could have considered a good neighbour agreement or re-offered mediation. It could also have explored additional options to corroborate the resident’s reports or reduce the noise. She had previously completed diary sheets but it had considered this evidence insufficient, and she had tried to record the noise with no success. These are all identified as appropriate interventions according to the landlord’s ASB and GNM procedure.
Its inconsistent approach and failure to follow through on the actions it had outlined meant it missed an opportunity to resolve or mitigate the issues for the resident. It also unduly raised her expectations and impacted her faith in it to take meaningful action.
The resident reported further issues to the landlord via the scheme manager on 3 July 2024. This included harassment from the neighbour and ongoing noise disturbance. The scheme manager requested that it open an ASB case. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 July 2024, which was within the appropriate timeframe, but only completed the risk assessment on 10 July 2024. It did not open an ASB case until 22 July 2024, which was 14 working days after the resident’s report.
In its complaint response it acknowledged it had delayed in contacting her and opening an ASB case, for which it offered £25 compensation. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its poor communication and delay. However, we have determined that additional compensation is due considering the landlord’s wider failings. This is outlined below and in our orders.
The landlord outlined an action plan as part of the ASB case. This included meeting with the neighbour to discuss the allegations which it did on 31 July 2024. It followed up with a formal written warning not to antagonise or intimidate the resident. It also asked the neighbour to sign an ‘acceptable behaviour agreement’ (ABA). This stipulated that that they must not engage in antagonising behaviour or otherwise approach or communicate with the resident. It warned that to do so was a breach of tenancy.
The landlord also asked the resident to sign an ABA confirming she would not approach, talk, or respond to the neighbour. The resident felt the landlord had treated her like a “criminal” by asking her to sign this. It is understandable the resident felt it was treating her as a perpetrator rather than a victim. However, we have not seen any evidence the landlord considered her to be at fault and its intention was to reduce tensions.
Both the resident and the neighbour declined signing the ABA. However, the resident reported no further instances of the neighbour approaching or contacting her. As a result, the landlord closed the ASB case on 10 September 2024. This was reasonable given it had taken proportionate and targeted intervention and there was a reduction in the ASB. It also notified her it was closing the case in line with its policy.
However, it still had a responsibility to investigate the noise disturbance which the resident felt was intentional and constituted covert harassment. In its closure letter, the landlord recommended that the resident try to record the noise on her phone or get someone to witness it. It said the scheme manager would also try to inspect the neighbour’s property. It also offered to apply for carpeting to reduce any sound transference. These were reasonable interventions according to its GNM procedure.
It is not clear whether the resident completed diary sheets at this time and there is no evidence she was able to evidence the noise. However, she had previously completed diary entries and the landlord had deemed this insufficient. The resident described the noise as a low-level vibration that was not detectable by noise recording equipment. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to explore other means of witnessing or establishing the cause of the noise.
On 23 September 2024 the resident reported that the noise disturbance had kept her awake all night. She described it as ‘torture’. Given the issue was ongoing and having a significant impact on her mental health, the landlord agreed to arrange for an independent witness to attend to observe the noise. It made a referral the following day. However, the witness did not attend until 8 November 2024. A third party provided this service. The landlord’s records show it chased them on several occasions to progress the visit. As such the landlord is not responsible for the slow progress, but we recognise this was to the inconvenience of the resident.
According to the complaint response, the witness also attended on 26 November 2024 and did not observe noise on either occasion. This was disappointing for the resident who said the noise happened most nights. In its complaint response the landlord said it had not received further reports from the resident about noise or ASB. However, the resident considers the noise disturbance ongoing and intentional.
To pursue action against the neighbour, the landlord must have evidence of the noise and be sure they are causing it intentionally. It took reasonable action by arranging for an independent witness. We appreciate landlords have finite resources and cannot use this intervention ongoing. However, the lack of evidence does not negate the resident’s experience and we appreciate this has been stressful for her.
It is not clear that the landlord has undertaken all reasonable investigations, including inspecting the neighbour’s property. It has referred to the previous survey which indicated the cause was structural, but it is unclear what this included, and what the outcome was. We have made an order below that the landlord satisfy itself, and this Service, that there is no alternative cause of noise by completing a further inspection, at least of the resident’s property. It should also reiterate its offer of carpets to the resident, to assist with any noise transference.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This centres on its handling of the resident’s reports in November 2023. There was inconsistency in its approach, with confusion about whether it considered the matter ASB. As a result, it delayed in responding and did not follow through on actions it had outlined to investigate her concerns. It missed an earlier opportunity to resolve or mitigate issues and mismanaged her expectations.
It took effective action following her subsequent reports of ASB in July 2024 by issuing the neighbour with an ABA. It was reasonable for it to use an independent witness to explore her concerns about noise nuisance and it made suitable recommendations to further explore or mitigate the noise. However, it remains that there are further actions the landlord can take to investigate the matter, as outlined in the below orders.
In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not evidence a thorough investigation. It only considered events from June 2024 as part of its response. While we appreciate it could not investigate her historic concerns, it should have reflected that this was a long-standing issue and showed empathy for the ongoing impact on her.
The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. While we recognise it offered £25 compensation for delays in its response to her reports of ASB in July 2024, this is not sufficient. It must pay an additional £175, bringing the total to £200. This is in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. It reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its failings.

Request for housing transfer

In its housing options and allocations policy, the landlord states it may be able to offer a management move to another property in limited circumstances. These include “antisocial behaviour/severe harassment”. The resident must have an evidenced need to move.
In other cases, residents can apply for a mutual exchange or apply to the local authority for a transfer through a choice-based letting scheme.
As a result of the ASB and noise disturbance, the resident has sought a transfer from the property dating back several years. The landlord has directed her to mutual exchange programs and advised her to explore options for a transfer via the local authority’s housing register. However, these routes have been unsuccessful. The resident feels she is not seen as a priority for an exchange because she resides in a studio flat for residents above a certain age.
The landlord explained the resident did not meet the threshold for a managed move in its letter to her on 10 September 2024. It was transparent about its position and reiterated advice it had given previously about exchange options.
Later in September 2024 the scheme manager advised the resident to get a letter from her doctor in support of a move. She did so and provided the letter to the landlord in January 2025. It confirmed she struggled with stress and anxiety related to issues with the neighbour. The doctor also said the resident attributed her hypertension to the situation. There is no evidence the landlord responded directly to this which was unreasonable. It had raised her expectations that a letter may assist her and its lack of response caused her distress.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for a managed move in its initial complaint response. It was right to acknowledge this in its final response and compensate her for its complaint handling failure. It explained it was unable to offer or arrange a management move via its complaints process. While this may have been the case, it could have further explained why its housing team did not consider a managed move appropriate in her circumstances.
We understand the landlord has some discretion in its allocation of properties through a ‘managed move’. However, it only has a limited number of properties and re-houses residents in the most critical and limited situations according to criteria outlined in its policy. It discussed the resident’s request internally but assessed it did not meet the threshold for consideration by its management move panel. While we sympathise with the resident’s situation, the landlord’s position was ultimately reasonable and in line with its policy. We are unable to direct the landlord to progress a management move as it has authority over the allocation of its properties in line with the collective needs of its residents.
However, it should have provided further explanation of its position in its final complaint response. This would have demonstrated it had considered her request and helped the resident understand its position. Particularly given she had acted on its advice and provided a supporting letter from her doctor. For this reason, we have found service failure.
The landlord’s offer of compensation for its failure to address her request in its stage 1 response was reasonable. However, it should award additional compensation for its failure to explain its position and why she did not meet the criteria for a managed move. We consider a total of £175 to be appropriate in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. It reflects the adverse impact on the resident because of the landlord’s failures.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB and noise disturbance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £375 compensation. This includes the £125 it previously offered in its final response, which it can deduct from this total if already paid. The amount is comprised of:
  1. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of her reports about ASB and noise nuisance.
  2. £175 for distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its response to her request for a housing transfer.
3. Offer to inspect the resident’s property to identify any issues contributing to noise disturbance. On the agreement of the resident, it should conduct a survey and complete any actions it considers necessary and proportionate to reduce noise transference.
4. Provide this Service with evidence of its compliance on the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Consider whether to inspect the neighbouring property for evidence of intentional or structural noise disturbance. It should do this subject to a risk assessment and with the agreement of the resident.
2. Reiterate its offer to carpet the resident’s property to reduce any noise transference.