Southern Housing Group Limited (202009095)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009095

Southern Housing Group Limited

08 December 2021

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 response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of:
1. Dog fouling by tenant A.
2. Threats to kill by tenant B.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was the tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.
The resident’s tenancy ended in March 2021.
The property is a mid-terrace house.
Within the majority of his correspondence to the landlord, as summarised below, the resident confirmed that the matters subject of his complaint were impacting on his mental health and the general health of his wife. The resident provided information to the landlord from his and his wife’s GP and health care providers to support this.

Summary of events

On 9 April 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its response to investigate and address dog fouling by tenant A. The resident reported that tenant A did not clear up after their dogs and therefore their garden was “full of dog excrement”. The resident stated that the issue was a “health risk” and the mess could be smelt over the boundary between the properties. Within his complaint the resident reported that he had spoken with tenant A regarding the matter “last year” however the situation had not improved.
On 28 April 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord confirmed that it had written to tenant A regarding dog fouling in the garden. The landlord confirmed that this was the “first warning stage of the process”. The landlord confirmed that if there was no improvement the resident should let it know so that it could look to take further action.
On 29 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to report dog fouling by tenant A. The resident stated that the “smell and stench [was] disgusting”. The resident reiterated that despite speaking with tenant A they had not taken action to address the situation. The resident therefore asked the landlord to take action. Within his correspondence the resident noted that it was not clear if tenant A had permission to keep dogs in their property.
On 22 June 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his concerns regarding dog fouling.
On 23 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding dog fouling. The landlord stated that tenant A had agreed to clean up any dog mess on a daily basis. The landlord set out that the resident should complete diary sheets to record the days on which tenant A did not clean the garden up. The landlord confirmed that it would also be contacting the local authority’s dog warden for their assistance in the matter to request that they carry out their own un-announced visits.
On 9 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding his “ongoing complaint” concerning dog fouling by tenant A which was causing him “great distress”. The resident set out that the landlord’s “attempts to resolve this matter [had] not been satisfactory”. The resident stated that he wished to take his complaint to this Service and requested that the landlord provided a final response under its complaint procedure.
During July and August 2020 the resident continued to report dog fouling by tenant A to the landlord. Within his correspondence the resident noted that tenant A’s behaviour was hostile, including that they had left dog faeces directly outside of the property and were directing offensive language towards him. The resident noted that tenant A had been issued with a “first warning” on 28 April 2020 however it had not made a difference.
On 7 August 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that despite receiving a threat to kill by tenant B it had not taken any action. The resident noted that he had reported the incident to the police, who had confirmed that it was a housing matter.
On 10 August 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding its response to investigate and address threats to kill by tenant B. The resident reiterated that despite reporting the matter to the landlord no action had been taken. The resident set out that the landlord should arrange a property transfer for him.
On 1 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that he was disappointed with the landlord’s response to his reports of dog fouling by tenant A. The resident stated that despite the landlord issuing warning letters to tenant A the situation had not improved. Within his correspondence the resident noted that he had also reported the matter to the local authority who had issued tenant A with a notice on 12 August 2020. The resident added that it was also unsatisfactory that the landlord had not provided a final response to his complaint about its handling of his reports of dog fouling.
On the same day the landlord responded confirming that his concerns about dog fouling had been logged as a stage one complaint and a response would be provided by 14 September 2020.
On 2 September 2020 the resident replied to the landlord to remind it that he had also made a complaint about threats to kill by tenant B which occurred on 21 July 2020.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update on the status of the complaint, following a chaser. The landlord set out “the full review of the anti-social behaviour (ASB) case [was] not yet complete”, however it would be completed as soon as possible.
On 29 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry for the delay in providing its stage one response. The landlord noted that this was due to “staffing issues and delays in acquiring the information needed”. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint was about “lack of contact during ASB [investigations]”.
2. It had two ASB cases open for investigation:
  1. “Neighbours allowing dogs to defecate in garden”.
  2. “Verbal abuse/ intimidation/ harassment – threats from neighbours”.
3. It had responded to the resident’s concerns regarding dog fouling in line with its ASB policy as it had responded to messages, calls and emails within its published guidelines. The landlord confirmed that this included a visit to tenant A.
4. Allegations regarding threats to kill by tenant B had not proceeded due to the lack of information from the police. The landlord confirmed that, should it receive information from the police, further action could be taken.
The landlord confirmed that it would now close the service complaint.
The landlord’s records set out that the resident called the landlord on 7 October 2020 advising that he was not happy with its stage one response and he would therefore like to escalate the complaint to stage two. In response the landlord confirmed that a stage two response would be provided by 21 October 2020.
In early October 2020 the resident submitted further information to the landlord regarding its response to his concerns about dog fouling and threats to kill. The resident noted the landlord had failed to respond to or address his concerns about dog fouling and he had not received an outcome to his complaint about threats to kill. Within his correspondence the resident noted that he had received a threatening letter from the landlord dated 8 October 2020 suggesting that he was the perpetrator of ASB rather than the victim.
On 8 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding “the issue of dog faeces being left in the garden by [tenant A]”. In summary the landlord said:
1. The resident had submitted “significant volumes of communication on this issue” and therefore it would like to clearly set out what it could and could not do going forwards. The landlord asked the resident to limit his correspondence to “clear and specific breaches”.
2. Within its stage one response dated 29 September 2020 it confirmed that it was satisfied that it had followed its ASB policy to investigate and address dog fouling.
3. Tenant A owned two dogs. The landlord confirmed that tenant A had recently signed and agreed terms on a pet agreement contract.
4. Tenant A was issued with a notice by the local authority following a visit on 12 August 2020. The landlord explained that this was a section 43 written warning setting out that if no improvement was made in relation to dog fouling, they would be issued with a community protection notice. The landlord confirmed that it also issued tenant A with a warning to honour the pet agreement.
5. Since the warning notices it had conducted an unannounced visit to tenant A to check on the condition of the garden and it had received daily videos from tenant A showing them clearing up and bagging dog mess. The landlord confirmed that it was happy that tenant A was taking appropriate action following the warning letters issued. The landlord set out that it would monitor the situation to ensure that the current measures continued to be applied.
6. Tenant A had made counter allegations against the resident. The landlord confirmed that it had liaised with the police who had advised that no further action was being taken in relation to the complaints made.
7. It could offer the resident and tenant A mediation to assist in resolving their differences.
8. It had explored an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement (ABA) with both the resident and tenant A, however it was turned down by both.
9. It was aware that the resident would like a property transfer. The landlord confirmed that the resident may wish to explore Home Swapper as his circumstances did not warrant a management transfer.
On 16 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that there would be a delay in its stage two response due to the volume of cases it was currently dealing with. The landlord noted that if the complaint required consideration by a panel this would likely not take place until December 2020.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord responded to an MP enquiry regarding the resident’s ASB concerns. In summary the landlord said:
1. Tenant A was engaging with it in relation to dog fouling and it was actively monitoring the situation.
2. It was attempting to work with the police regarding threats to kill by tenant B. The landlord advised that once the police had confirmed its position it would agree what action it could take in accordance with its ASB policy. The landlord noted that the police had either cancelled or rescheduled meetings to discuss the matter.
On 12 November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask if his formal complaint about threats to kill by tenant B could be dealt with as the case had been reviewed by the police and tenant B was required to attend court in respect of the matter. Within his correspondence the resident noted that tenant B had made another threat towards him “on Sunday” but despite reporting it to the landlord it had not “bothered” to investigate.
During November 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord on several occasions requesting that it respond to his complaint about threats to kill by tenant B. The resident also stated that tenant A had broken the pet agreement.
On 2 December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report that he had been verbally abused by tenant A when trying to collect evidence of dog faeces.
In early December 2020 the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to request that it respond to the ASB concerns which he had raised in relation to dog fouling and threats to kill. Within his correspondence the resident reiterated that tenant B had been charged with threats to kill and had to attend court.
On 17 December 2020 the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord apolgoised for the lack of contact, however noted that it was investigating the resident’s concerns “behind the scenes”.
On 15 January 2021 the landlord provided a final response addressing the resident’s two complaints. In summary the landlord said:
1. Tenant A and tenant B had made counter allegations of ASB against the resident.
2. In respect of dog mess:
  1. It made “early contact” with tenant A on notification of the resident’s concerns to find a way forward.
  2. It had worked with the local authority’s Animal Welfare team to address the matter.
  3. It had also liaised with the police regarding the matter. The Ombudsman understands that this was due to counter allegations from tenant A about the resident.
  4. Following its intervention tenant A had signed a pet agreement to promptly clear up any dog mess.
  5. While it had taken steps to address the resident’s concerns, a review of its handling of the case had highlighted that it had not always taken his concerns seriously or communicated with him as well as it could have.
  6. It had written to the resident on 7 October 2020 confirming its position.
3. In respect of threats to kill:
  1. It had not been able to get a clear picture from the police regarding the incident, despite numerous attempts. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore been unable to corroborate the resident’s allegations, including his recent update that tenant B had been charged and would be attending court.
  1. Its review of its handling of the case had highlighted that it had not kept the resident updated regarding its investigation into the matter.
The landlord concluded by apologising for its poor communication in respect of both ASB cases, confirming that the case would be taken forward as learning. The landlord explained that the resident may refer his complaint to this Service if he was not happy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman notes that on 5 January 2020, just prior to the landlord’s final response dated 15 January 2020, the landlord applied for and was granted a without notice injunction by the court in respect of the resident as a result of the counter allegations from tenant A and tenant B. As part of the terms of the injunction the resident was instructed to refrain from:
1. Using or threatening to use violence, towards either tenant A or tenant B.
2. Intimidating or attempting to intimidate or acting in an aggressive manner towards either tenant A or tenant B.
3. Shouting or swearing, using foul and or abusive/ offensive/ insulting/ racist/ homophobic language towards either tenant A or tenant B.
4. Engaging in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance and annoyance towards either tenant A or tenant B.
The case was listed for a full hearing in May 2021. Prior to the hearing in May 2021 the landlord made an application to the court to discontinue to the case as the resident ended his tenancy in March 2021.
On 24 May 2021 the court ordered that the hearing listed be vacated as it had granted permission to discontinue the case.
Paragraph 39(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider matters that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
This means that under paragraph 39(h) the Ombudsman may decide not to determine a case where the court could have handled all the matters complained of to this Service. This is because the Ombudsman ought not to make decision which may affect the findings and orders of the court. So, where issues can be raised in legal proceedings, the court is the appropriate forum for listening to the arguments.
While legal proceedings did commence in this case, the case was subsequently discontinued and no final order was made. The resident therefore did not have the opportunity to raise his concerns regarding the landlord’s management of his ASB allegations relating to dog fouling and threats to kill in response to tenant A and tenant B’s counter allegations against him, as part of his defence in those legal proceedings. Consequently, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to consider the resident’s complaint, as defined in the complaint definition, in order to provide the resident with an outcome to the concerns which he raised under the landlord’s complaint procedure. In determining the complaint the Ombudsman will not comment on the injunction, or whether it was appropriate for the landlord to seek this, as this did not form part of the resident’s original complaint or his referral to this Service.
In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported.
The landlord has adopted the definition of ASB as detailed in section 2 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 which states that ASB means behaviour by a person which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or conduct capable of causing housing related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out that:
1. It will ensure a service for reporting ASB.
2. It will respond to reports of ASB.
3. It will liaise with partner organisations in relation to ASB.
4. It will undertake action that is reasonable and proportionate.
As the resident’s allegations relating to dog fouling and threats to kill could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it was therefore necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The Ombudsman recognises that this was a complex situation consisting of allegations and counter allegations about the resident’s behaviour. The Ombudsman appreciates that situations like this case be difficult to manage for a landlord. The focus of this investigation is the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB by tenant A and tenant B, however the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response within the wider context of the landlord managing the overall situation.

The landlord’s response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of dog fouling by tenant A

Following the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns regarding its response to resolve and investigate dog fouling by tenant A, under its complaint procedure, its position was that it had taken steps to address the resident’s concerns however its communication had not always been satisfactory.
The landlord has provided a copy of its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its handling of the resident’s concerns. The records document that in response to the resident’s allegations the landlord undertook the following interventions while the complaint was live:
1. Issuing a warning letter to tenant A.
2. Requiring tenant A to sign a pet agreement.
3. Reviewing tenant A’s daily videos of removal of dog mess.
4. Undertaking unannounced visits to tenant A’s property.
5. Liaising with the local authority’s dog warden.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion these actions were reasonable and proportionate including to remind tenant A of their obligations under their tenancy agreement, to provide tenant A with the opportunity to modify their behaviour and to establish whether the resident’s allegations could be substantiated or not. As the landlord was satisfied, following its interventions, that tenant A was responding positively to its interventions, by taking action to address dog fouling, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that no further action was needed at that time.
Within its final response the landlord stated that while it had taken reasonable and proportionate action in response to the resident’s allegations it recognised that its communication with the resident had not always been satisfactory. From review of the landlord’s records, the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s assertion in this regard. While the landlord’s records indicate contact via text message and acknowledgement of his reports of dog fouling, during the period under investigation the Ombudsman has not identified any regular or comprehensive updates to the resident setting out its response to investigate and address his concerns. This is unsatisfactory, including as it will have resulted in the resident concluding that his concerns were not being managed appropriately or being taken seriously.

The landlord’s response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of threats to kill by tenant B

Following the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns regarding its response to resolve and investigate threats to kill by tenant B, under its complaint procedure, it was its position that it had been unable to take any action due to lack of information from the police. The landlord also recognised that its communication had not always been satisfactory.
The landlord has provided a copy of its contemporaneous records to demonstrate its handling of the resident’s concerns. The records show that the resident reported threats to kill by tenant B in summer 2020 and in response the landlord made attempts to contact the police for information on several occasions between August 2020 to December 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was appropriate that the landlord sought to contact the police in respect of the allegation, as the resident reported that the police had been informed and the incident, if proven, would have amounted to a criminal offence. Further it was in line with the landlord’s ASB procedure which sets out that it will work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and reduce ASB. The evidence shows that the police did not respond to the landlord’s requests for information while the complaint was live.
From review of the records the Ombudsman has not identified that the landlord took any other proactive action to investigate the resident’s reports of threats to kill by tenant B. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unsatisfactory. As the police had failed to engage with the landlord regarding the allegation, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made its own enquiries to establish if any further intervention was required or not. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position that it was unable to take action, as it had been unable to gain a clear picture from the police, was not reasonable, including as it has a responsibility to its tenants, as noted in its ASB policy, to tackle, prevent and resolve ASB.
The Ombudsman notes that tenant B was making counter allegations about the resident, at the same time he was reporting threats to kill. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this will have complicated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations, a landlord should take a robust approach to all allegations put to it in order to meet its obligations.
Within its final response the landlord acknowledged that it had not kept the resident updated regarding its investigation into his allegations of threats to kill by tenant B. From review of the landlord’s records the Ombudsman agrees with the landlord’s assertion in this regard. During the period under investigation the Ombudsman has not identified any regular or comprehensive updates to the resident setting out its response to investigate and address his concerns. This is unsatisfactory, including as it will have resulted in the resident concluding that his concerns were not being managed appropriately or being taken seriously.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident submitted his stage one complaint about dog fouling on 9 April 2020 and his complaint about threats to kill on 10 August 2020. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about both matters at stage one on 29 September 2020. Following the landlord’s stage one response the resident requested to escalate his complaint on 7 October 2020. The landlord provided its stage two, final response on 15 January 2021.
From review of the timeline of the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s responses, the Ombudsman is not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is because the landlord’s responses were significantly delayed which will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident. The landlord’s response times were also unacceptable as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage, which the landlord did not do in this case. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord recognised its poor complaint handling within its final response.
The Ombudsman also considers that there were a number of shortcomings in terms of the landlord’s complaint response at stage one. While it was appropriate that the landlord set out its position on each matter, in the Ombudsman’s view the landlord failed to provide adequate reason and explanation to support the conclusions it reached. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in the resident feeling that his concerns had not been taken seriously.
As set out in paragraph six, within his correspondence to the landlord the resident confirmed that the matters were impacting on his and his wife’s mental health and general health and provided evidence to support that this was the case. In responding to the complaint the Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord did not give any recognition to the resident’s concerns in this regard, including to acknowledge how he felt and the impact the situation was having on him. The Ombudsman further considers that the landlord’s delayed responses will have heightened the resident’s perception that it was not doing enough or taking his concerns seriously.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of dog fouling by tenant A.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of threats to kill by tenant B.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of dog fouling by tenant A

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dog fouling by tenant A was appropriate, as it took reasonable and proportionate action to investigate and address the allegations. This included reminding tenant A of their obligations under their tenancy agreement, providing tenant A with the opportunity to modify their behaviour and undertaking unannounced visits to tenant A. As the landlord was satisfied, following its interventions, that tenant A was responding positively it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that no further action was needed at that time.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised that its communication with the resident had been unsatisfactory in respect of his allegations about tenant A it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not take into account the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience the resident will have experienced as a result of the failing.

The landlord’s response to investigate and resolve the resident’s reports of threats to kill by tenant B

While it was appropriate that the landlord sought to contact the police in respect of the resident’s reports of threats to kill by tenant B, it was unsatisfactory that the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord sought to carry out its own enquiries when the police failed to respond to its multiple requests for information and to therefore meet its obligations under its ASB policy.
While the landlord acknowledged and apologised that its communication with the resident had been unsatisfactory in respect of his allegations about tenant B it does not amount to reasonable redress. This is because it does not take into account the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience the resident will have experienced as a result of the failing.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unsatisfactory as its responses were significantly delayed which will have resulted in uncertainty, inconvenience and distress to the resident.
While it was appropriate that the landlord set out its position on each matter – dog fouling and threats to kill – within its stage one response, it was unsatisfactory that it failed to provide adequate reason and explanation to support the conclusions it reached.
In responding to the complaint it is unsatisfactory that the landlord did not give any recognition to the resident’s concerns that the ASB matters were impacting on his and his wife’s mental and general health to acknowledge how he felt and the impact on the situation was having on him.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident the following compensation within four weeks or the date of this determination:
1. £200 in respect of its poor communication with the resident in relation to its response to his allegations about dog fouling and threats to kill.
2. £200 for not demonstrating that it had made its own enquiries in response to the resident’s reports of threats to kill.
3. £150 in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that, where another agency fails to respond to its request for information in relation to an ASB case, it seeks to make its own enquiries in order to satisfy itself that no intervention is needed and to meet its obligations under its ASB policy.
The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s ASB allegations in order to take away learning points.
The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its officers who respond to complaints to ensure that complaints are responded to in accordance with best practice.