Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202218086)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218086

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 February 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord that commenced on 27 September 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom second-floor flat within an extra care housing scheme. The resident has mental health conditions which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 28 January 2022 the landlord met with the resident to discuss his concerns about noise nuisance from a neighbouring property, which included a vibrating washing machine, slamming windows, and loud thumping. The landlord subsequently visited the neighbour the same day to discuss these reports. On 15 March 2022 following further reports of noise nuisance the landlord contacted the local authority’s environmental health team. They informed the landlord they could provide sound equipment to the resident, but he would need to request this from them directly. The landlord also contacted support agencies to assist him with his mental well-being.
  3. On 4 April 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. In summary, he said that the landlord’s staff had not supported him with the noise nuisance he was experiencing. As an outcome, he wanted an apology, a face-to-face meeting and an explanation as to why the landlord had left him in this situation.
  4. On 5 May 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It agreed to meet with the resident to discuss the issues he had raised and apologised for any inconvenience he might have been subjected to. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 7 July 2022. He was unhappy with its apology and requested a mediation meeting with the landlord. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request on 2 August 2022 and informed him that he would receive a stage 2 response by 31 August 2022.
  5. During September 2022 the resident reported further noise nuisance from his neighbour. This included the dropping of household items, children playing and ‘bumping’ along the floor. He also alleged that his neighbour had deliberately dirtied his windows and was throwing insects onto his window ledge. On 30 September 2022 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, it said it had contacted him about making a regular time for a staff member to come and see him and that they would be in touch to arrange a suitable time to discuss how they could support him further with his noise concerns.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said that over the past year, he had been subjected to calculated and intimidating noise as well as various things being dropped out of his neighbour’s window. He said that the situation had affected his mental wellbeing and that the landlord had overlooked this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance and ASB from a neighbouring property

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

        a Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

        b. Put things right.

        c. Learn from outcomes. 

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy lists incidents that it may not treat as complaints of ASB, these include but are not limited to normal household noise such as vacuuming, children playing, occasional door slamming and noisy appliances. It adds that if it decides that a report is not ASB it may still offer help or advice.
  3. The policy also states that it will risk assess all reported ASB incidents and will look at the vulnerability of those experiencing the ASB to assess the support that is required. Further, it states that it will take a balanced approach to preventing and reducing ASB and that any action it takes will be based on the circumstances of each case and will be proportionate to the behaviour.
  4. The landlord’s records showed that it met with the resident at his property on 28 January 2022 to discuss his reports of noise nuisance. Written noise logs provided to this Service showed that the resident’s main issues at this point were a loud washing machine and the slamming of windows. The landlord’s records showed that it visited his neighbour the same day to discuss these reports. Although the landlord may have reasonably concluded that the noise did not constitute ASB as outlined in its policy, it acted fairly by visiting the neighbour to help resolve the resident’s concerns.
  5. The landlord visited the resident again on 16 February 2022, where he provided it with written noise logs. A month later the landlord contacted various agencies to seek support for the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was appropriate in the circumstances and the landlord acted in line with its policy by assessing the support that may be required for the resident. The landlord also acted reasonably by contacting the local authority’s environmental health team to enquire about noise equipment. They informed the landlord that they would only provide equipment if the resident requested it directly. The landlord’s records indicated that it would help the resident request this, however, it is unclear if this happened. This may indicate issues with the landlord’s record-keeping and a recommendation has been made below in this regard.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it would meet with the resident to discuss the issues he had raised. While it is unclear if this happened, this Service has seen evidence of regular visits to the resident during September 2022. During these visits, the resident raised further concerns about noise and other matters including allegations that his neighbour had deliberately dirtied his windows and thrown insects onto his window ledge. In response, the landlord acted fairly by visiting the neighbour to discuss these reports and to witness the noise. Although there was no evidence of any excessive noise, it took reasonable steps to support the resident by agreeing to provide him with a Dictaphone to record the noise. These were balanced and proportionate steps to take.
  7. While the landlord could have concluded that the resident’s reports did not meet the threshold of ASB, in line with its policy, its actions demonstrated that it understood the resident’s needs. Overall, it was committed to helping support him and the landlord’s actions were reasonable, balanced and proportionate in the circumstances. In addition, its records indicated that it regularly risk-assessed the resident. This demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s vulnerabilities seriously. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the landlord had overlooked the resident’s mental well-being, rather its records showed a willingness to support him in this respect. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of no maladministration in its handling of reports of noise nuisance and ASB from a neighbouring property.
  8. It is noted that the resident raised further issues with noise and ASB from his neighbour after the landlord’s final response. While it appears, the landlord took proportionate actions in response to these reports, the landlord should continue to offer support to the resident in line with its policies and procedures. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days and it will aim to respond within 20 working days. It adds “If it is not possible to respond within 20 working days, we will contact you and let you know why we are not able to do this and when we will provide the response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason and your agreement”.
  2. It took the landlord over 3 weeks to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. Its acknowledgement stated that it would respond by 31 August 2022, however, this did not happen. While this Service appreciates that the landlord was having difficulty contacting the resident to discuss his concerns, these delays were avoidable. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of the delay. This would have likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy. Its final response was issued almost 3 months after the resident’s escalation request. This was a considerable delay. In addition, its stage 2 acknowledgement stated that the delays in escalating his complaint would be considered in the landlord’s review of his complaint. However, its final response failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling failures. This amounts to service failure and an order of compensation is made below in line with this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, pay the resident the sum of £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
  2. The landlord should respond to and support the resident with any ongoing concerns of noise nuisance and ASB.