Southern Housing (202500782)

Background

1. The resident told us she has experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her next-door neighbour since July 2024.The neighbour is privately renting the property from a freeholder. The neighbour does not have a relationship with the resident’s landlord. The resident described the ASB as threatening behaviour and intimidation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB from a neighbour.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

4. The landlord failed to act in line with its policy. It did not agree an action plan with the resident or provide regular updates.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its delayed complaint response and made a proportionate offer of compensation.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that since the start of the issues complained about her blood pressure had increased and her husband was depressed. She said she believed this was because of the issues described. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we will consider if the landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord has not disputed that the resident first reported issues with her neighbour in July 2024. She reported further incidents in September 2024 and told the landlord that the Police were aware.
8. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will assess each report on receipt and, where the matter falls within its ASB procedure, complete a risk assessment. However, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment until 19 November 2024. We have not seen evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident following the assessment, although its policy requires it to do so and to provide updates every 15 working days. This was a failing.
9. In November 2024, the landlord sought advice from its legal team about how to progress the case. At that time, the landlord believed the neighbouring property was leasehold, and the legal advice focused on actions against a leaseholder rather than a freeholder. This misunderstanding delayed the landlord’s ability to take appropriate action and to engage with the correct external agencies as set out in its policy.
10. On 27 November 2024, the landlord asked the resident to complete a witness statement and said it would update her once it had reviewed this with its legal team. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 December 2024 and again on 31 December 2024 to request updates and report further incidents of intimidation. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided updates at that time, which was contrary to its 15 working day update requirement.
11. The landlord continued to liaise with its legal team. It told the resident on 27 January 2025 that it would discuss the ongoing issues with them, but again there is no evidence that it agreed an action plan with her. On 4 February 2025, the landlord told the resident it could not provide updates due to GDPR. This was inconsistent with its policy requirement to update residents every 15 working days.
12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 February, 28 February, and 3 March 2025. She said she had submitted ASB diary sheets as requested but had not received an update. She also reported that the Police had attended following a further incident. The landlord said it would liaise with the Police, but we have not seen evidence that it did so at that time.
13. In its stage 1 response on 25 April 2025, the landlord said that the action it could take against the neighbour was limited because it did not have a landlord tenant relationship with them. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but said it would support her in reporting the behaviour to the local authority.
14. Following the response the landlord contacted the local council for advice and asked whether it would consider the case through a multi-agency approach. This was reasonable and demonstrated a willingness to support the resident.
15. The landlord completed a further risk assessment on 23 June 2025. It told the resident it would contact its ASB team and legal team for further advice on the steps and that it would update her by 1 July 2025. We have not seen evidence that the landlord updated the resident when it said it would. This was unreasonable.
16. In its stage 2 complaint response on 7 July 2025 the landlord said it was seeking legal advice about the action it could take and had referred the case to its housing team for further support. It acknowledged the resident’s time and effort the seeking a resolution, apologised and offered her £65 compensation.
17. When a landlord acknowledges its failings, we must consider if any redress it offered put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s time and effort seeking a resolution and made some attempt to put this right by offering £65 compensation and explaining that it was seeking advice from its legal team.
18. We accept that the action the landlord can take in situations like this where it does not have a landlord tenant relationship with an alleged perpetrator is limited. However, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy. Although it completed 2 risk assessments it did not agree an action plan with the resident or keep her updated every 15 working days. The landlord also failed to give the resident a clear explanation of the action it could take after seeking legal advice, which did not manage her expectations.
19. Also, there is no evidence the landlord requested police disclosure about an incident, despite stating it would do so. This is not in line with its ASB policy which states it will request information for the police about an incident. Equally it contacted the local council for advice on whether it could include the case in its multi-agency meeting, but there is no evidence it proactively progressed this request.
20. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports because it did not act in accordance with its policy. We considered the landlord’s existing offer of £65, its compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We did not find the offer proportionate to the failings identified. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident a further £100 in addition to the £65 it has already offered.

21. The landlord operates 2 stage complaints process compliant with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. And to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.
22. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days but it took 19 working days to respond to the complaint. This exceeded the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and was not appropriate.
23. Additionally, it took the landlord 28 days from the date it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint to respond to it. This exceeded the timescale set out in the landlord’s policy. However, it was reasonable that it contacted the resident to tell her its response would be delayed.
24. The landlord acknowledged the delay and apologised for it in its stage 2 response. This was appropriate. Additionally, it made a proportionate offer of compensation of £50 to reflect the inconvenience caused by its delayed response.
25. Having considered the evidence available, we find reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

General learning

26. The landlord must ensure it holds correct information when investigating reports of ASB. Had the landlord correctly identified the property was owned as a freehold before seeking legal advice it may have been able to better manage the resident’s expectations. This indicates either a training gap or a record keeping failure.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord failed to maintain accurate records about the tenure of the resident’s neighbour which delayed a resolution. To improve, the landlord should review its record-keeping processes and ensure that tenure information is accurately captured and regularly updated to prevent delays in resolving similar issues.

Communication

28. The landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident in respect of the matter complained about. The landlord should implement a proactive communication approach, including scheduled updates, to maintain transparency and reassure residents during the complaints process.