Southern Housing Group Limited (202013713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013713

Southern Housing Group Limited

21 January 2022

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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, under a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord since 2004. The resident states that she has been experiencing ASB by her neighbour for 17 years. The earliest report of ASB provided to this investigation dates from 2007. The landlord has provided records logging reports of ASB and its action in response between 2016 and 2021. The resident states that in 2016 the landlord obtained a suspended possession order (SPO) against her neighbour, which was in force between 2016 and 2018.
The landlord’s ASB policy states at paragraph 1.2 that following a report of ASB the landlord will undertake a risk assessment and then contact the complainant to agree an action plan. The landlord’s staff are encouraged to take ‘full and accurate’ notes of all reports. For low and medium risk incidents, the landlord aims to contact the resident within 2 working days.
Paragraph 2.6 of the landlord’s ASB policy states that as part of its initial response the landlord should ask if the resident has any support needs. When an action plan is agreed, paragraph 4.3 of the policy states that the landlord should make sure ‘any support needs have been identified and appropriate referrals made’. Paragraph 4.5 requires the landlord to manage expectations and keep all parties informed and paragraph 6.2 requires the landlord to contact a resident by phone if it intends to close a case, and to follow up in writing.

Summary of events

In response to reports of ASB in December 2017, the landlord wrote to the resident outlining its action plan. This included discussing the reports with the resident and her neighbour, sending a warning letter and providing an emergency contact number so the resident could report incidents occurring on weekends. The resident was encouraged to continue to report incidents to the council’s Enforcement and Safety Team.
Following further reports of ASB in 2018, the landlord issued an anti-social behaviour agreement (ABA) to the resident’s neighbours and liaised with police about reports of noise nuisance and criminal activity. During this time the landlord received reports of ASB about the same alleged perpetrator from other residents and its own operatives.
The landlord’s solicitors were instructed to seek a possession order against the alleged perpetrators in December 2018. The resident was advised in March 2019 that it was awaiting information from the police before making an application to the court. The resident continued to report ongoing noise nuisance.
The landlord provided an update to the resident on 10 June 2019, stating that it was in correspondence with her neighbour’s solicitors and intended to issue proceedings if it had not received a response by 17 June 2019.
The resident was advised that a hearing had been listed for 23 August 2019. She was encouraged to continue to keep diary sheets and to report incidents of ASB. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2019, listing 9 incidents of noise nuisance between February and June 2019, some of which had continued for several days. She noted that it had been quiet for a period, in June 2019 and part of July 2019. She reported that the noise had lessened recently, although she still heard banging and shouting. The resident stressed the impact this was having on her health.
The hearing of 23 August 2019 was vacated by agreement, with directions drawn up between the parties. A hearing was then listed for 19 December 2019. The resident continued to report ASB and provide evidence to the landlord, which was passed to its solicitors.
It appears from the evidence that the hearing did not go ahead on 19 December 2019. On 7 January 2020, the resident reported 5 further instances of noise nuisance between 10 December 2019 and 4 January 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 March 2020 asking it to write to her neighbour about the ongoing noise nuisance following an incident the previous night where her neighbours were banging, shouting, screaming and revving motorbikes throughout the night. The resident described the noise as ‘unbearable’ and noted that it was seriously affecting her physical and emotional wellbeing.
The landlord responded on 3 March 2020 confirming that it would send a letter to the resident’s neighbour. It also stated that it was currently awaiting a date for the hearing.
According to the landlord’s records, on 21 May 2020 the resident reported that her neighbours were playing loud music and having a party. The resident was advised to contact the noise team.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2020. She reported that the noise from her neighbours was ‘non-stop’. The resident raised concerns about the number of people living in the property and the number of daily visitors, which she suggested breached government guidelines on contact during the Covid-19 pandemic. The resident also complained about the condition of the neighbour’s garden, including a smell and infestation of flies, and reported suspected drug use at the property. The resident had reported the ASB to the council. She asked if the landlord could add this information to the court file and if a warning letter could be sent about the garden and noise. A warning letter was sent on 18 August 2020.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 January 2021 to confirm that she was still experiencing ASB. She noted that October 2020 had been ‘really bad’, with ‘constant’ noise, ‘banging, shouting, slamming doors, running up and down the stairs, music’. The resident highlighted the impact on her sleep and mental health. The resident reported that the behaviour had continued in November and December 2020, although not every day.
A hearing was listed for 8 February 2021, but this did not go ahead as the parties agreed a second SPO on 5 February 2021. This was confirmed to the resident in an email sent by the landlord’s solicitor that day. The resident expressed her disappointment with the decision, stating that her neighbours had previously broken an SPO, which was why proceedings had been issued. She requested a copy of the order for her records. The landlord’s solicitor confirmed that it was unable to disclose the terms of the SPO.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 8 February 2021 to discuss the outcome and provided a verbal summary of the terms of the Order. The resident repeated her dissatisfaction with the outcome. The resident then emailed on 10 February 2021 to request a written summary. The landlord responded on 11 February 2021, providing a summary of the terms of the SPO.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 11 February 2021 about the way her reports of ASB by her neighbour had been handled since 2004. She stated that:
1. She had been reporting ASB, in the form of noise nuisance at unreasonable hours, damage to property, verbal abuse, and animal noise and waste since 2004, including providing diary sheets and footage as supporting evidence. Over the years, ASB, suspected criminal activity and over-crowding had been reported to the landlord, the police and the Council’s noise nuisance team.
2. In 2014 the landlord obtained an SPO against her neighbour but despite the resident’s reports of ongoing ASB, no further action was taken for breach of the terms of the order, which expired in 2016.
3. Further legal action was commenced in 2018 and a second suspended possession order was agreed between the parties on 8 February 2021. The resident could not understand the significant delay, or why the landlord had not proceeded to the hearing and allowed the alleged perpetrators to remain in the property by agreeing an SPO. The landlord initially refused to provide details of the agreed order in writing, which the resident felt was inappropriate.
4. The landlord had suggested that the resident seek a property transfer or continue to report further incidents of ASB. This was not a satisfactory solution as the resident had made improvements to her current property to adapt it to suit her mobility issues and she did not wish to move.
5. The resident felt the landlord had failed in its duty of care to her as she had not been adequately advised or supported as a victim of ASB. A support plan had not been offered, as required under the landlord’s ASB policy, and it had breached the terms of her tenancy agreement that protected her from nuisance and annoyance.
6. There were records missing from the landlord’s systems of her reports of ASB between 2014 and 2018. Her previous Housing Manager at that time had ‘disappeared’ and the landlord had stopped responding to her communications.
7. The resident outlined the significant impact of the ongoing ASB on her mental and physical health and wellbeing.
The formal complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 15 February 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 February 2021 to advise of a delay in responding to her complaint. It stated that this was because it was ‘significantly busier than usual’. It confirmed a full response would be provided as soon as possible. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 30 March 2021. The response concluded that:
1. There were delays in taking formal action against the resident’s neighbour, ‘partially due to Covid-19 and partially due to the other party’s Solicitors requesting extensions’ and trying to adjourn the hearing. The landlord had agreed to an extension on some occasions but that these were ‘limited’. The landlord confirmed that it had agreed to an SPO on the basis of the legal advice it had received about its prospects of success should it proceed to a hearing. The resident had been informed of the SPO by the landlord’s solicitor on 5 February 2021.
2. In response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, the landlord explained that confusion had arisen due to a poor handover between team members. The landlord apologised for the disappointment this had caused.
3. The landlord offered £75 compensation in recognition of the poor handover and the length of time the matter had taken to resolve.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 April 2021, outlining her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She commented that:
1. Following an SPO issued in 2016, the landlord failed to investigate her reports of ASB and did not record details of the reported incidents on its systems between 2014 and 2016.
2. Between 7 September 2017 and March 2018, the resident received no contact from her Housing Manager. She was then contacted by a newly appointed temporary Housing Manager in March 2018. This person was unaware of the previous court action and stated that the relevant documentation was missing from the landlord’s systems. The resident provided the landlord with a copy of the SPO, which expired in 2018.
3. The resident’s complaint was about the ‘lack of assistance’ and ‘poor handling’ of her ASB case for over 17 years. She stated that the landlord had failed to provide appropriate advice and protection.
4. The landlord’s stage 1 investigation was inadequate, as the current Housing Manager had only limited knowledge of the history of the ASB complaints. The stage 1 response incorrectly stated that her current Housing Manager had been involved since 2018, when he had in fact been involved since February 2019.
5. The stage 1 response had inaccurately described the behaviour complained about, which included not only noise nuisance but drug use, threatening and intimidating behaviour, her neighbour’s failure to maintain their garden and breaches of previous acceptable behaviour contracts.
6. The resident had requested details of the court order of February 2021 in writing and this request was initially refused, with a verbal summary provided by phone. The resident was dissatisfied that she had been forced to log an enquiry to obtain this information in writing.
7. The resident asked whether her ASB case had ever been closed and, if so, what were the reasons.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 April 2021. The resident then spoke with the landlord on 26 April 2021.
The resident sent a further email on 3 May 2021, repeating her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She stated that the landlord had missed opportunities to take enforcement action against her neighbours for breach of the SPO between 2016 and 2018. The resident also stated that in 2018 the landlord had received correspondence from the Council confirming drug use and prostitution at the neighbouring property, which it should have acted on. The resident outlined the financial, emotional and health costs of the ongoing ASB and described the serious impact that the behaviour had had on her mental and physical wellbeing. She stated that the £75 compensation offered was inadequate and requested a rent refund for a period of 48 months.
The landlord telephoned the resident to discuss her complaint on 4 and 7 May 2021. In its final response to the complaint, of 10 May 2021, the landlord stated that it had reviewed case logs dating back to 2004, together with recent court documentation. The stage 2 review found that:
1. The landlord could have done more to communicate with and support the resident during the years she had been experiencing, ‘persistent noise nuisance and ASB’.
2. The landlord had complied with its ASB policies and procedures when managing and acting on the resident’s reports of ASB over the years. This included logging case notes, undertaking risk assessments, communicating with the resident about her reports and obtaining 2 SPOs against the alleged perpetrator.
3. The decision to agree an SPO was reasonable in the circumstances, in part due to the restrictions placed on evicting residents during the pandemic. The landlord acknowledged that it had taken a long time to obtain the SPO, noting that there were delays to court proceedings as a result of the pandemic.
4. The landlord should have done more to keep in regular contact with the resident prior to the court proceedings, particularly during the pandemic. It could have agreed a support plan or signposted the resident to other organisations that could support her.
5. The landlord offered £750 compensation in recognition of the service failure identified. Within 5 working days it would agree a plan with the resident for how new reports of ASB would be reviewed and responded to, providing confirmation of the actions it would take and the reasons why, and keeping in contact with the resident at least every 2 weeks to enquire about her welfare and any recent incidents of ASB. It would also discuss support agencies with the resident.
6. It was unclear whether documents were missing from the landlord’s systems, however, it accepted that as the resident had been required to provide documentation that should have already been available to the landlord this evidenced a poor handover between previous members of staff. The landlord offered a further £750 compensation in recognition of the fact that this may have extended the period during which she experienced ASB.
7. The landlord provided a copy of a letter sent to the resident on 26 January 2018, informing her that the ASB case would be closed as she had reported that the ASB had stopped, and no reports had been received for 2 weeks. The landlord had sent a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator and provided an emergency contact number if incidents occurred during weekends.
8. The compensation offer of £75 made at stage 1 was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy, however, having completed a full review the landlord felt it was appropriate to increase this offer to reflect the significance of the service failure.
The landlord has provided a copy of an ASB action plan, completed on 18 May 2021. This confirmed that there would be fortnightly contact with the resident about the ongoing issues, that the landlord was liaising with the Council regarding local support services, that evidence submitted by the resident would be reviewed within 2 days of submission and that the landlord would follow up with a call and email to confirm the action it would take.
The resident has reported that she continues to experience ASB, which has resulted in further action by the landlord. The resident feels the compensation offer is inadequate to reflect the years of distress she has suffered, and she would like the landlord to take action against her neighbour and to consider a move to another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Given the length of time that has passed, the Ombudsman is unable to review the landlord’s historic handling of the ASB dating back to 2004. It would not now be possible to comprehensively investigate the landlord’s actions or inaction throughout this period to establish whether its response was always fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Although the Housing Ombudsman Scheme in paragraph 39(e) provides a timescale of matters we can investigate, to events occurring within 6 months of the formal complaint, this investigation has discussed the landlord’s actions in response to reports of ASB since December 2017. This is to ensure that the full context of the events, resulting in the level of compensation by the landlord, is taken into account. The Ombudsman will also consider the adequacy of the landlord’s complaint investigation and response, including its response to the resident’s concerns about its record keeping between 2014 and 2018 due to the overall impact of this on the handling of her complaint in 2021.

Landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

It is not disputed that there has been serious, ongoing ASB by the resident’s neighbour over a period of many years. It is not clear when possession proceedings were first initiated by the landlord, as the resident’s initial complaint referred to an SPO obtained in 2014 but her later correspondence suggests that an SPO was obtained in 2016. Part of the complaint relates to the landlord’s failure to retain a copy of the SPO of 2016, which has not been provided to this investigation. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that an SPO was agreed prior to February 2021.
Since December 2017 the landlord followed its ASB policy by taking both informal and formal action against the alleged perpetrators. This included discussing the allegations, sending warning letters, liaising with police, seeking legal advice and later issuing possession proceedings. The landlord’s response was in line with the requirements of its ASB policy and demonstrated an appropriate escalation of action within a reasonable time.
It is of some concern that there is limited information available about the SPO obtained in 2016. The landlord has provided extensive records of its contact with the resident about her reports of ASB between 2016 and 2021, although it accepted in its stage 2 response that it cannot conclusively determine whether all records of contact have been logged and retained.
In the absence of details of the 2016 SPO, the Ombudsman cannot make findings as to whether the landlord should have taken further enforcement action at an earlier stage. The landlord has accepted that there may have been a poor handover between staff, which could have meant that the resident’s Housing Manager was unaware than as SPO was in place until the resident provided a copy in 2018, at which point the order had expired. The landlord has accepted that this poor handover may have affected the action it took and lengthened the amount of time the resident was subjected to ASB. It has apologised for this and offered compensation, which is discussed below.
In the period between 2016 and 2018, when the resident alleges that the landlord failed to keep records, the landlord’s case notes provided to this investigation contain entries for August, September and November 2016 and May and June 2017. Letters have also been provided acknowledging reports of ASB in 2018 and the action taken in response, together with a case closure letter from 26 January 2018, explaining why the case would be closed due to a lack of recent reports.
The evidence shows reports of ASB, telephone calls to the resident in response, contact with the police about the reported incidents, and details of visits to and warning letters sent to the neighbouring property. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has demonstrated that it kept adequate records between 2016 and 2018, and that it recorded the action it took to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns.
There was a considerable delay between legal proceedings being contemplated in December 2018 and agreeing an SPO in 2021. The landlord has explained that this was as a result of the defence solicitors requesting extensions and due to unavoidable postponements of the hearing as a result of the pandemic. The landlord’s explanation for the delay is, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable.
The landlord kept in regular contact with its solicitors to progress the legal action between December 2018 and 2021 and due to circumstances beyond its control it was not able to obtain a hearing date until February 2021. As a court would expect to see that the parties had attempted to resolve the issues informally and behaved fairly during the pre-trial process, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to agree to extensions of time, on the advice of its legal professionals.
The resident is understandably very disappointed with the landlord’s decision to agree an SPO, particularly as the previous SPO did not prevent further ASB. It is not for the Ombudsman to comment on whether there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the landlord should have proceeded to trial and as it reached its decision on the basis of professional legal advice, the Ombudsman must conclude that its actions in doing so were reasonable.
There is no express condition in the resident’s Tenancy Agreement that requires the landlord to prevent ASB from occurring, although it is likely that the same terms prohibiting the resident from causing nuisance and annoyance to her neighbours are also present in her neighbour’s Tenancy Agreement. The landlord’s ASB policies and procedures do, however, require it to investigate all reports of ASB, and to consider what particular support a complainant may require.
In this case, the landlord accepts, and the Ombudsman agrees, that it did not do enough to support the resident. There is little evidence of contact with the resident between 2019 and 2021, other than to provide updates on the progress of the legal action. During this period, the landlord could have considered whether additional, informal action could be taken to address the ongoing behaviour, and it should have considered making referrals or directing the resident to appropriate victim support agencies.
Despite multiple reports of ongoing ASB between 2019 and 2021, the landlord only sent one warning letter in August 2020 whilst it awaited news on the legal proceedings. Although it is accepted that the landlord was limited in what additional action it could take, its failure to maintain regular contact with the resident and to acknowledge her ongoing concerns increased her frustration and the distress she experienced as a result of the ASB.
The Ombudsman also notes that there was a delay in the landlord providing a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. As the landlord provided an update to the resident, informing her of the delay, the Ombudsman will not make a finding of service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling, however it is reminded that it should adhere to the timescales set out in its Complaints Policy and where an extension of time is required, the landlord should keep in regular contact with the complainant to update them.
Whilst the Ombudsman recognises the considerable stress that the ASB has caused the resident over a number of years, compensation cannot be awarded to reflect the distress caused by the ASB itself. The Ombudsman can only award reasonable and proportionate compensation to reflect the landlord’s failings and the additional stress and inconvenience that this caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the amount of £1500 offered by the landlord in recognition of its failings is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, awards of compensation in excess of £700 are only made where the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord, ‘that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant’. Awards of this amount may recognise a serious impact on a resident, both physically and emotionally.
In this case, the landlord found that it failed over a number of years to adequately support the resident and to ensure that there was a comprehensive handover of information between staff dealing with her case. A compensation offer of this size indicates that the landlord has taken the complaint seriously and that it is committed to putting things right for the resident, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It has also put in place new measures to support the resident as a result of the complaint. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of her reports of ASB.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.

Reasons

The landlord has offered a total of £1,500 compensation in recognition of the lack of support provided and the inadequate handover between members of staff dealing with her ASB case. It has agreed an action plan with the resident for how it will acknowledge and respond to her reports of ASB going forward. The Ombudsman is satisfied that as a result of the complaint the landlord has conducted a reasonable investigation into its actions, identified areas where its response could be improved, and sought to improve its service to the resident and other victims of ASB.