Southern Housing (202428635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428635

Southern Housing

12 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:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for the shared garden to be split.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 2 May 2008. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a ground floor flat and has a garden which she shares with the upstairs flat. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
Following an earlier complaint in relation to noise related ASB from the upstairs property, the landlord opened an ASB case on 5 December 2023, created an action plan with the resident and referred the resident and the neighbour for mediation.
Mediation took place on 10 January 2024 during which the neighbour signed a good neighbour contract, and the resident was offered the use of a professional witness. Following this, the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case.
Throughout the rest of January and February 2024, the resident continued to report excessive noise from the neighbour and confirmed she had reported each occasion of noise to the police.
Following a home visit by the landlord on 28 February 2024, it decided to install a noise monitoring box in the resident’s property. It installed this on 9 April 2024. Prior to that, 3 professional witness visits took place, none of which found noise. The landlord confirmed the noise heard on the monitoring equipment was not enough to meet the threshold for ASB, but it suggested that it conduct an in-person sound test to understand the situation properly.
On 21 May 2024, the resident asked that the landlord divide the shared garden in 2.
The resident continued to report the noise nuisance to the police and provided the landlord with the reference numbers for each report. The landlord completed the sound test on 3 July 2024, following which it was determined the noise was due to the structure of the building and the landlord agreed to explore if it could complete any remedial work to alleviate the issue.
A community trigger meeting took place on 3 July 2024 which found that the landlord had acted appropriately in addressing the noise complaints. It highlighted that the evidence collected by the landlord did not find a noise nuisance and therefore the local authority could not take enforcement action against the neighbour.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 July 2024, in which she gave an extensive timeline of the issues experienced and raised concerns about the lack of communication since November 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. She had reported noise nuisance to the police over 45 times during the period from November 2023.
2. The landlord’s approach to the ASB was a tick box exercise, with no enforcement actions. She said the community trigger meeting made out that the landlord had done enough to support the resident which she disputed.
3. She had also chased the landlord about the request to split the garden and not received a response.
4. She asked why it was so easy for the landlord to not believe her.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. In relation to the resident’s request to split the garden, it was sorry that it had failed to respond and said it would provide an update by 19 September 2024.
2. In relation to its handling of the ASB, it gave a history of the action it had taken to resolve the issue for the resident. It accepted its communication could have been better but confirmed it had followed its ASB process.
3. It offered compensation of £80, made of £15 for its poor communication, £15 for the resident having to chase for updates in relation to the garden and £50 for its complaint handling.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 5 September 2024 and the landlord provided its response on 11 October 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed it had recognised in its stage 1 response that its communication was not of the standard expected but that it had followed its ASB process.
2. It apologised for not communicating with the resident, as promised, about the garden. But confirmed it would not split the garden as it was communal.
3. It had arranged, as a one off, to cut the garden back following which it would contact the resident and neighbour to set up a long-term maintenance plan.
4. It confirmed it would be taking no further action in relation to the noise as it was normal day-to-day noise but confirmed it could arrange mediation around the sharing of the garden.
5. It amended its compensation offer to £190 comprising of:
  1. £50 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble.
  2. £100 for unsatisfactory complaint handling.
  3. £15 for having to chase the landlord.
  4. £25 for failing to respond within the timescales.
The landlord confirmed in writing to the resident on 13 November 2024 that it would not open a new ASB case as it had investigated the issues previously and the noise was due to the construction of the building. It confirmed the neighbour had not breached the tenancy agreement and therefore, it would take no legal action.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident wanted the ASB resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. 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 residents living in their homes. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision-making process and an audit trail after the event.
Additionally, cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case may not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB policy ensures that a landlord is acting fairly, its response is proportionate to the issues raised, and that its approach is consistent, even if it does not lead to the outcome requested by the resident.
When the resident reported the ASB again in November 2023, the landlord appropriately reached out the resident to create an action plan to help resolve the noise issue for the resident. This was a good proactive initial response by the landlord. It was appropriate to set out an agreed action plan, in line with its policy, which advised the resident what it would do to investigate the reports of ASB, and it set out its expectations of the resident to continue to gather evidence of ASB.
The landlord also referred the resident and the neighbour to mediation which began on 10 January 2024 when the mediator visited both parties separately. It was appropriate for the landlord to try to encourage better relations between the neighbours with mediation. This is because early intervention can reduce escalation of ASB.
Following the mediation, the neighbour signed a good neighbour contract in which they agreed to keep the noise to a minimum. The mediator also offered the resident the use of a professional witness to capture the noise going forward. Because of this, the landlord wrote to the resident on 18 January 2024 to advice it was closing the ASB case. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord discussed this with the resident to establish the status of the noise nuisance or to inform her why it would be taking no further action at that stage. It would have been useful for the landlord to have discussed its decision to close the case with the resident prior to sending the letter.
Throughout February 2024, the resident continued to report further noise nuisances to the landlord and provide references from reports she had made to the police. There is evidence that the landlord was in discussion with the mediator to find out the status of engagement, if any, there was with the resident. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to any of the resident’s reports. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained to the resident its position in relation to the noise, whether that would be to open a new case or to explain why it would take no further action.
The landlord undertook a home visit to the resident’s property on 23 February 2024; However, it has provided no details of the outcome of that visit, which suggests an issue with its record keeping.
Following the visit though, the landlord agreed to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property. Given the resident’s consistent reports of noise nuisance, this was an appropriate step to investigate the noise and establish if the noise met the threshold for further action.
In the time between the visit and the noise box installation on 9 April 2024, the contractor undertook 3 professional witness visits during which no noise was noted. While the professional witness noted the noise heard constituted bangs which did not meet the threshold of excessive noise, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the outcome of the visits to the resident or that it explained to her that the noise did not meet the threshold for ASB or statutory noise nuisance and outcome of that. Doing so may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations around what it could or could not do to resolve the situation.
Following the examination of the noise from the monitoring box, internal emails show the landlord was further satisfied that the noise did not meet the threshold for it to be considered ASB and therefore, it could take no action against the neighbour. However, as the resident was persistent in her reports of noise nuisance, the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident on 2 May 2024 to confirm that it would undertake an in-person sound test. This was reasonable in the circumstances and highlights the landlord’s commitment to thoroughly investigate the noise reports.
It also said that it would play the recordings to the neighbour to understand what was causing the noise and then it would contact the resident to discuss what, if anything, it had agreed with the neighbour. While it was appropriate of the landlord to discuss the noise recordings with the neighbour, the email from the landlord suggested that the neighbour was at fault and therefore that it would take further action. It would have been useful for the landlord to explain that the noise heard during the monitoring did not meet the threshold for tenancy action but that it would speak to the neighbour to agree an acceptable level of noise moving forward to manage her expectations.
Between the 2 May 2024, when the landlord wrote to the resident and the 13 June 2024 the resident contacted the landlord 9 times to report further noise nuisance. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to any of these reports. Where the resident made the reports over the phone, the landlord has provided no details of the conversations or if it explained what action if any it would take. This failing had a detrimental impact on the resident who said in one email that the landlord’s responses were “lacking.” While we would not expect the landlord respond to every instance reported, especially when reported in such frequency, the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations by establishing clear and transparent boundaries about how it would respond to the ASB issues she raised.
Following the further reports and with recommendation from its internal ASB officer, the landlord arranged with the resident to complete an in-person sound test in the property. This concluded that the noise transference between the 2 properties was louder in the living room, and this was down to the structure of the property. The landlord appropriately confirmed the upstairs property was correctly soundproofed but said it would liaise with its repairs team to see if it could undertake remedial works to help alleviate the property sounds. Given the persistent nature of the noise and the impact on the resident, it was appropriate of the landlord to consider the work as a possibility.
The enquiries concluded that the landlord could not complete any remedial works to improve the structure of the property and therefore lesson the noise transference. While this was unfortunate, it was reasonable of the landlord to investigate the possibility given the prolonged nature of the noise concerns.
Despite undertaking the sound test on 3 July 2024 and confirming it would be unable to complete remedial works in the property, the landlord did not communicate with the resident about its findings until 16 July 2024. The landlord’s lack of effective communication with the resident has been clear throughout this case. A landlord needs to ensure it has effective and robust systems in place to ensure it communicates regularly with residents to manage expectations. During that period, the resident spent further time reporting noise nuisance and chasing updates. This is evidence that the landlord missed opportunities to communicate with the resident and manage her expectations around the actions it could or could not take.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was closing the ASB case. It appropriately also highlighted the action it had taken and advised why it was unable to take further action and reminded the resident the noise did not meet the threshold for ASB. We understand that closing the case may not have been the outcome the resident wanted. However the landlord followed its ASB policy, and the evidence suggested it acted fairly, and its response was proportionate to the issues raised.
However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it reached out to the resident to discuss the current situation before making a final decision to close the case. The landlord’s decision led the resident to raise a formal complaint.
Following the complaint, the resident continued to report noise nuisance to the landlord. Again, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident’s concerns. The landlord was receiving a high volume of emails from the resident relating to the ASB and while it had confirmed it would not be opening a further ASB case as the complaints did not meet the threshold, it was not appropriate that it just ignored the resident’s reports. This would have been a further opportunity for it to manage the resident’s expectations by establishing clear boundaries about how it would respond to the reports or to explain that it would no longer be responding and setting out the reasons why. Just not responding had a detrimental impact on the resident.
In both the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, it set out the actions it had taken to try to resolve the situation and reiterated to the resident that while its communication could have been improved, it had followed its policy and confirmed that it would be taking no further action in relation to the noise as it had confirmed it was normal day-to-day. It was appropriate of the landlord to confirm its stance to the resident. While we understand the situation was difficult for the resident, the landlord cannot take action where a noise level does not meet the threshold for ASB or statutory noise nuisance.
Throughout this case, it has been evident that the landlord, in line with its policy, liaised with third parties to help investigate and resolve the situation for the resident. The landlord was in contact with the police, it attended the community trigger meetings and liaised with the mediator and its professional witnesses to gain a deeper understanding of the situation and worked with the parties to resolve the situation for all. It also considered if it could complete any remedial works to help alleviate the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances given the longstanding noise issues in this case and highlighted the landlord’s commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
While the landlord’s communication was lacking in this case, it acknowledged that its communication was not of the standard expected, apologised for the failing and offered the resident £50 compensation to reflect the time and trouble taken by her in this case.
Therefore, while the landlord’s communication could have been improved, it has made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the garden to be split.

The resident contacted the landlord on 21 May 2024 to ask that the landlord split the shared garden in 2 with the neighbouring garden. The garden was overgrown, and the resident did not wish to clear it for the neighbour to then be able to use it. The resident raised the issue again 24 May 2024. The landlord discussed this with the resident via telephone on 3 June 2024. Although it has provided no details of this call, the evidence suggests that it said it would not split the garden but would discuss with the neighbour the resident having sole use of the garden. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider the resident’s request; helpfully explain why it would not split the garden but say it would discuss the issue with the neighbour.
However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it acted upon the resident’s requests or undertook the promised discussion with the neighbour. This was not appropriate. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective systems in place to track resident’s requests and ensure it completes promised actions within a reasonable period. Not doing so caused the resident to raise a formal complaint.
In the stage 1 response, the landlord accepted that it had not provided the resident with a response. It offered the resident compensation of £15 to reflect the poor communication and provided the resident with a timeline for when it would respond. The acceptance of the failure and offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord said it would provide a response by 19 September 2024; however, it did not respond until 23 September 2024. While the delay is minimal, the resident had made the request 5 months earlier and therefore it would have been useful for the landlord to have responded within the timeframe given originally.
In its response, the landlord confirmed it could not split the garden, and it was for both properties to share. While this would have been disappointing for the resident, the landlord offered to do a one-off clear of the garden and to help set up a maintenance plan between the resident and neighbour going forward. As the garden was the responsibility of the resident and neighbour, the landlord was under no obligation to offer this service but given the circumstances, it was reasonable of it to offer to do so.
In its stage 2 response the landlord also offered the resident further mediation with the neighbour to help facilitate the sharing of the garden. This was a useful action for the landlord to offer given the ongoing situation with the neighbour.
In the stage 2 response it also accepted that it had not responded within the promised timescales with regards to the garden and apologised for delays in clearing the garden. In doing so it offered the resident compensation of £40 to reflect the delays.
Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s handling of the situation could have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made a formal complaint on 25 July 2024 which the landlord acknowledged, in line with its policy, within 5 working days.
The stage 1 response was due on 10 August 2024, 10 working days after the acknowledgement, however the landlord wrote to the resident on 2 September 2024 to say it would respond by 13 September 2024. Where a landlord is unable to respond within the set timescales, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), sets out that a landlord must communicate the delay to the resident prior to the expected due date and provide details of when to expect the response. It was therefore not appropriate that it did not contact the resident until 2 September 2024 to inform her of the delay.
However, in its stage 1 response it apologised and offered the resident £50 to compensate for the delay. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 5 September 2024 and the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on the same date. The resident chased the landlord on 23 September 2024 as she had not received an acknowledgment of the request. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy which says it would acknowledge a request within 5 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the request on 25 September 2024 and provided its stage 2 response, in line with its policy, within 20 working days, on 11 October 2024.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised the delay in escalating the response and appropriately offered the resident £100 to reflect the identified failings.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling could have been improved. However, it recognised and accepted its failings and offered compensation to the resident which we consider amounts to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
2. The resident’s request to split the garden.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress has been made in the landlord’s handling of the ASB, the resident’s request to split the garden and its complaint handling, the landlord should pay the compensation offered of £190 if it has not already done so.
The landlord should consider writing to the resident setting out clearly when it will respond to communication in relation to noise reports to help manage the resident’s expectations and to establish clear boundaries around communication between the resident and the landlord.