Southern Housing (202429318)

Decision
Case ID	202429318
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 October 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a semi-detached house. She has vulnerabilities relating to her mental and physical health. These include a nerve condition and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Her complaint relates to a dispute with a next-door neighbour. From May 2024 onwards, the resident made various reports to the landlord about the neighbour’s conduct. These often referenced altercations and intrusive noise.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Related requests for a tall fence.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of ASB related welfare issues, including the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Handling of related welfare issues, including concerns about unfair treatment.
3. Complaint handling.
There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests for a fence.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found that the landlord:
1. Was responsible for ASB handling delays which adversely impacted the resident.
2. Did not provide important information about her requests for a tall fence.
3. Did not explore her concerns about unfair treatment through its complaints process.
4. Was responsible for complaint handling delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 17 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £200 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports of ASB. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her requests for a tall fence. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its handling of ASB related welfare issues, including concerns about unfair treatment. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 November 2025
3	Learning order The landlord must share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It must share a copy of its relevant internal correspondence with the Ombudsman.	No later than 17 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 August 2024	The resident called the landlord. She said she was “really unhappy” with its ASB case handling. She said the ASB had been ongoing for several months and the landlord had allowed the neighbour to bully her. The landlord gave the resident some information about its complaints process.
16 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the ASB had got worse and the landlord had “left [her alone] to deal with it”. She also said it had not returned some of her calls. The resident highlighted her vulnerability.
Between 24 September and 2 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord to add a new issue to her complaint. She was unhappy that it had not approved her request for a tall fence at the front of the property. She felt a tall fence would deter ASB. The landlord made some internal enquiries. It subsequently told the resident to notify its complaint handler about her additional complaint point.
4 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It detailed several actions which it had taken to progress the resident’s ASB case. It also listed around 20 different times when it had updated her about the case. Ultimately, it did not identify any related failures. The landlord’s other key points were: It had put in place a good neighbour agreement (GNA) between the resident and the neighbour. The parties had declined its offer of mediation. It had reviewed the resident’s audio recordings. It needed sufficient evidence to warrant tenancy action. It had made a safeguarding referral for the resident. The resident could submit an improvement request for a fence. The resident would have to pay for the fence.
7 October 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she was living a “horrible life” due to the neighbour’s conduct. She stressed her vulnerabilities and the adverse impact on her welfare. She felt the landlord should do more to resolve the dispute. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord’s actions indicated that it favoured the neighbour. The police had advised her that the landlord should do more. The neighbour was using a video doorbell to monitor and abuse her. Nearby, another tenant had erected tall fencing at their home.
28 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It said it had taken action to address the resident’s ASB reports in line with its policy. It did not uphold her complaint. The landlord’s other key points were: It had reviewed the resident’s recordings and issued the neighbour a formal warning. For data protection reasons, it was unable to provide further information about its measures against the neighbour. The resident could have a low fence at the front of the property. Planning permission was required for fences over a certain height. It was investigating the neighbour’s CCTV coverage. It was sorry to hear about the resident’s wellbeing. It had previously made a safeguarding referral for her. It would contact the resident twice a week about her ASB case.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In March 2025 the resident told us that she wanted the landlord to install a tall fence and take action against the neighbour. We tried to obtain a further update in October 2025. We were unable to contact the resident.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

We can assess whether a landlord responded to ASB reports in line with relevant policies and procedures. We can also consider if its related actions were reasonable. We cannot establish whether a person is responsible for ASB, or order a landlord to take action against neighbours.
The landlord’s relevant ASB policy (effective December 2023) sets out its approach to ASB. It shows the landlord considers noise to be ASB if it is excessive. The landlord does not consider one-off incidents or everyday living noise to be ASB. If it decides to treat reported noise as an ASB issue, the landlord will:
1. Complete a risk assessment to guide its response.
2. Agree an action plan with the reporting resident.
3. Update the reporting resident frequently (at least every 15 working days).
4. Use proportionate tools and measures to address the issue.
5. Work in partnership with other agencies such as the police.
The landlord has supplied copies of its risk assessments and action plan. We have also seen its ASB case records and related correspondence. This includes correspondence with other parties. The landlord also supplied numerous audio recordings from the resident. She used these to evidence her reports of disruptive noise from the neighbour.
Overall, the evidence shows the landlord was monitoring the resident’s ASB reports in line with its policy. It also set her expectations about the frequency of its updates. For example, it issued her an action plan on 30 August 2024. In it, the landlord gave the resident advice and confirmed it would contact her every 2 weeks. This was appropriate.
Ultimately, the evidence confirms the landlord was in frequent contact with the resident throughout the ASB case timeline. It also visited her at the property on a number of occasions to discuss the reported ASB. The evidence does not support the resident’s assertion that the landlord left her to handle the neighbour dispute on her own.
During the relevant timeline, the landlord used proportionate tools and measures to address the neighbour dispute. For example, it promptly implemented a GNA when the resident reported an altercation in May 2024. In early September 2024, it tried to use mediation to de-escalate the dispute. These were appropriate steps in line with its policy.
Subsequently, the landlord issued the neighbour a formal warning. This was based on information it had received from the resident. It also liaised with the police and the local authority’s environmental health team about the resident’s case. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
There is no indication the landlord missed any clear opportunities to escalate its response against the neighbour. For example, there is no evidence to show the police took any further action against the neighbour, or that a statutory noise nuisance was identified. It is noted that noise monitoring equipment was placed in the property for a period. Overall, the landlord adhered to the key provisions in its ASB policy.
However, there is evidence the landlord did not promptly issue a warning to the neighbour. The parties’ correspondence shows the resident chased the landlord about a warning on 2 October 2024. The evidence points to a delay which lasted several weeks. If it had issued the warning swiftly, the landlord may have prevented some of the reported incidents around that time. On that basis, the resident was impacted by the delay.
The evidence points to a similar issue around the neighbour’s video doorbell. The landlord’s CCTV policy says, if it receives an ASB report about a similar device, it will investigate the matter at the earliest opportunity. It will also “take whatever action is appropriate on a case-by-case basis”.
In this case, the resident raised concerns about the neighbour’s doorbell from around mid-September 2024 onwards. The evidence suggests the landlord began to investigate the matter about 3 weeks later. Its records confirm the landlord did raise the issue with the neighbour. However, it is unclear what happened subsequently. This is concerning.
In its stage 2 response (28 October 2024), the landlord said it was investigating the neighbour’s doorbell. In late January 2025, the resident asked the landlord what action it had taken to address her concerns. On 11 March 2025, the landlord told her the doorbell was still “on [its] radar”. This was around 6 months after she began to raise the matter.
The resident raised the doorbell with the landlord on multiple occasions. This shows it was important to her. To date, there is no indication the landlord has clarified the situation. This is also concerning. Its correspondence indicates it may have been concerned about sharing information with the resident for data protection reasons.
If the landlord was satisfied the doorbell issue was resolved, it could have reasonably said this to the resident. Similarly, it could have told her when it had resolved the matter. The landlord was not sufficiently solution-focused. Its lack of action and/or communication was unreasonable. It is likely the situation was distressing for the resident and chasing the landlord was inconvenient for her.
Overall, the landlord adhered to the key provisions in its ASB policy. However, it did not promptly issue a warning to the neighbour. Similarly, it showed an unreasonable lack of action and/or communication in relation to the neighbour’s video doorbell.
The above identified issues were a source of inconvenience and distress for the resident. The landlord has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right for her. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s related requests for a tall fence
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a policy library on its website. There is no indication it has a specific home improvements policy.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says she can improve, alter, or add to the property. However, she must obtain “written consent” from the landlord and “other necessary approvals” first. The agreement says other approvals include planning permission if required. This wording puts the onus on the resident to obtain planning permission.
From September 2024 onwards, the resident made repeated requests for a tall fence. It is understood she wants the landlord to pay for the fence and install it. There is no indication the landlord is obliged to do this. We cannot compel it to complete these actions. For data protection reasons, we cannot investigate another tenant’s fence.
During a call with the landlord on 25 October 2024, the resident said it had given her conflicting information about fencing. She felt its stage 1 response had said she could fit a tall fence at her own cost. The corresponding response said the resident could make a home improvement request if she was willing to pay for the fence. This was relevant information. The response did not say whether her request would be approved or not.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident could install a shorter fence. It also said that planning permission would be required for a fence over 3 feet high. We used the government’s planning portal to check if this information was accurate.
The government’s portal says height restrictions apply if the desired fence is next to a highway or “the footpath of such a highway”. From the information seen, the landlord gave the resident accurate information about planning permission. However, it did not mention this in its stage 1 response. Ultimately, there was some inconsistency between its responses. Her correspondence suggests this caused confusion for the resident.
The resident’s request was important to her. On that basis, the landlord should have supplied her with clear and relevant information. This would have been a reasonable approach. It would also have allowed the resident to make an informed decision promptly. In this case, there is a lack of evidence to show the landlord did this.
For example, there is no indication the landlord told the resident whether she could make a planning application, or that the onus was on her to obtain planning permission. Similarly, there is no indication it told her that the neighbour may object to a planning application. This type of information may have helped the resident and/or prompted her to focus on other solutions. The evidence points to a communication problem.
Overall, the landlord gave the resident accurate information about fencing. However, some of its information was inconsistent and the resident noticed this. Significantly, it did not provide some important information that could have helped or set her expectations. This was unreasonable and may have caused avoidable distress for the resident. Given the above, we find there was service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	Handling of ASB related welfare issues, including concerns about unfair treatment
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s complaint involved a number of welfare issues. The landlord was largely sensitive to these. For example, the evidence shows it gathered information about the resident’s vulnerabilities at an early stage in the ASB timeline. Having done so, it made a safeguarding referral to the local authority on her behalf. It explored a further referral in December 2024. These were positive steps.
At different points, the landlord also gave the resident information about ways to move home. It did this because she was unhappy with her situation due to the reported ASB. Ultimately, the landlord provided relevant information to help the resident’s decision-making. This was also positive.
The resident raised concerns about unfair treatment during the complaint journey. In her escalation request, she said the neighbour had broken the terms of the GNA “numerous times” without consequences (from the landlord). In January 2025, she told the landlord she felt that it had not taken any action because the neighbour was “black and [she was] white”.
The above shows the resident had persistent concerns about unfair treatment. There is no indication the landlord attempted to explore these through its complaints process. This is concerning. It should have reasonably offered to raise a formal complaint for the resident in January 2025. We find the landlord’s omission was a significant procedural failure. It may have added to the resident’s view that she was being treated unfairly.
We checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment. There is no indication that the landlord favoured either party in the dispute. Similarly, there is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted because the landlord overlooked any protected characteristics or related legal duties.
Overall, the landlord was largely sensitive to the resident’s welfare. It took proactive steps to support her at various points. However, it did not attempt to explore the resident’s concerns about unfair treatment through its complaints process. This was an important procedural failure. The landlord’s approach may have added to the resident’s distress.
The landlord has not acknowledged this issue or attempted to put things right for the resident. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. The Scheme allows us to investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition (effective April 2022). The landlord supplied a complaints policy that was effective from July 2023. It says it reflects the Code’s provisions.
The landlord’s policy defines complaints as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about [the landlord’s] standard of service, actions, or lack of action”. This matches the Code’s definition. The landlord’s policy says it can raise complaints over the phone. The Code says the landlord must have more than one route to raise a complaint.
In this case, the resident first expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord during a phone call. The landlord did not log a complaint for her at that point. This was contrary to its policy. Ultimately, the landlord’s approach was not consistent with its policy or the Code. It caused an avoidable delay and prompted the resident to repeat her concerns subsequently.
Based on the period between 30 August and 16 September 2024, the delay lasted around 2 weeks. The delay may have been distressing for the resident. It is likely that repeating her concerns was inconvenient. The landlord should have recognised this and attempted to put things right for her. Its subsequent responses show it did not do this.
The landlord’s policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it will issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days after it has issued an acknowledgement. These timescales are consistent with the Code.
In this case, the landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s complaint by 23 September 2024. It should have then responded by 7 October 2024. The landlord adhered to its relevant timescales at stage 1. This was in line with the Code.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord addressed the resident’s additional concerns about the fence. In line with the Code, it was good practice to add these to its existing investigation. However, it told the resident to notify its complaint handler about these. The landlord could have reasonably been more proactive. Its approach prompted the resident to repeat herself again. This may have been avoidable and inconvenient for her.
Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord should have issued her an acknowledgement by 14 October 2024. It should have then issued a stage 2 response by 11 November 2024. The landlord complied with the relevant timescales. This was in line with the Code.
In its response (28 October 2024), the landlord said it would contact the resident about her ASB case twice a week. This level of contact would have been disproportionate (unless specifically requested/agreed). The landlord identified its error when the resident raised the matter on 1 November 2024. At this point, it apologised and confirmed it would contact her every 2 weeks instead. These were reasonable steps.
Based on the period between 28 October and 1 November 2024, it took the landlord 4 days to rectify the error in its response. Call records show the resident called it multiple times for updates during the interim period. The landlord’s incorrect information may have prompted some avoidable calls. Since the resident’s original complaint referenced a lack of contact, the landlord may have added to her distress. Given the above, we find its apology was not sufficient.
Overall, the landlord was responsible for complaint handling delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. It has not acknowledged the full extent of these or done enough to put things right for her. Given the related adverse impact, we find there was maladministration by the landlord.

Learning

Where the landlord decides to issue a formal ASB warning, it should do this promptly. This will ensure its warnings are as effective as possible. Similarly, it should ensure that it deals with CCTV/video doorbell related ASB concerns as swiftly as possible in line with its policy.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. However, there were some gaps in its records. These mainly related to its handling of the neighbour’s video doorbell. The landlord could remind its staff about the importance of good record keeping.

Communication

Some aspects of the landlord’s communication were inadequate or inconsistent. It should keep residents updated about issues that are important to them. It should also ensure its communications are clear and include any relevant signposting. This will help residents and may reduce avoidable follow-up enquiries.