Southwark Council (202315976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315976

Southwark Council

24 October 2025

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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
2. Response to the resident’s rehousing request .
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority, since 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom conversion flat. The resident was the primary carer for her husband, the joint tenant, who was vulnerable.
The resident’s son acted as her representative. This report references ‘the resident’ but refers to the actions and communications of both the resident herself and her son.
In this report we refer to ‘the landlord’. This refers to the team/s within the local authority carrying out housing management activities. It does not include other functions of the local authority.
From 2018 to 2020 the resident intermittently reported noise nuisance from her neighbour to the landlord.
Between December 2021 and June 2023 the resident made numerous reports of noise nuisance and allegations of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. She asked the landlord to rehouse her because of this. During this time the resident made a complaint on 15 January 2022. She said she did not feel the landlord was taking effective action in response to her concerns.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 14 February 2022. It said it was satisfied it had acted appropriately and in accordance with its procedures. It explained its limitations on what action it could take. It gave advice to the resident on how to report noise nuisance and advised her to report any alleged criminal incidents to the police.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 1 August 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and said it was not able to take legal action against the neighbour. It reiterated its earlier advice on reporting noise and criminal incidents and re-offered mediation.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2023. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour, and the way it had responded to her associated request to be rehoused.
Since the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident continued to report anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance. The landlord reiterated its previous advice and has since closed the noise nuisance complaint due to a reported lack of engagement from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman cannot consider or assess actions and decisions made by the local authority’s noise nuisance team as this falls outside their function as the landlord. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) are more suited to consider these complaints.
While it did not form part of the resident’s original complaint, the resident later referenced her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her rehousing request and the landlord addressed this in its stage 1 complaint response. However, for the same reasons set out in paragraph 12 above, we will not assess decisions made by the local authority’s housing options or housing choices teams. This is also for the LGSCO to consider. We will however consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s rehousing request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour

The landlord’s ASB procedure says it will open a case where a resident makes a report of ASB. It will carry out a risk assessment to determine the risk category. Depending on the scale of the reported ASB, the landlord will make necessary referrals, work with other agencies such as the police and action a variety of legal and non-legal remedies, dependent on how a case progresses.
This investigation will only consider the landlord’s housing management team’s handling of the reported noise nuisance, in accordance with our Scheme. We will not assess the actions of the noise nuisance team as this is the LGSCO’s remit. The evidence shows the landlord appropriately referred the resident to the correct service for reporting noise nuisance. It is noted the resident made 13 direct reports to the noise team between January 2022 and February 2024. The noise team established the noise to be of a domestic nature. It wrote to the neighbour and offered the resident noise monitoring.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states it should encourage residents to monitor and record reports of noise nuisance through a diary to help build a case for enforcement, if appropriate. The landlord could not consider taking formal legal action without evidence of a statutory noise nuisance. In an email dated April 2022, the landlord refers to diary sheets it had sent to the resident. Whilst this was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, there is no evidence provided to show when these were originally provided so we cannot determine if this action was taken within a reasonable timeframe.
The police made a recommendation in February 2022 for the landlord to inspect the floor between the resident’s property and that of her neighbour. The property was a conversion flat, and it would have been reasonable to inspect the property to determine if the noise insulation was sufficient. There may have been practical measures the landlord could have considered to minimise noise transference, however there is no evidence to show the landlord followed up on this recommendation, which was a failing.
The resident first reported ASB from her neighbour on 7 January 2022, reporting that nuisance had escalated from noise into “threatening aggressive behaviour”. The landlord’s procedure says that following a report of ASB it should complete a risk assessment during an initial interview with the resident to manage any risks effectively. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 8 February 2022. It found a medium level of risk which would have guided its next steps. Low and medium risk cases were to be managed by its housing team, who were responsible for any interventions and linking with referral agencies.
The landlords ASB procedure said it should respond to medium risk cases within 3 working days. It is reasonable to conclude that risk assessments should be carried out immediately after the resident’s report, so the landlord could respond accordingly. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in completing the risk assessment by over a month. This was a failing.
Following the risk assessment the landlord promptly made a welfare call to the resident. During the call, the landlord discussed the resident’s support needs, offered mediation and offered to arrange an online meeting. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take and in line with its ASB procedure.
The landlord’s ASB procedure states it should identify residents’ expectations on how a case is to be managed and be clear from the outset on the likely outcomes that can be achieved, including timescales. We expect landlords to create an action plan to help support residents who report concerns of ASB. It is good practice for the action plan to set out steps that both the resident and landlord can take to help resolve the ASB. With no action plan in place, the resident’s expectations on how she would be updated were not managed appropriately. The resident spent unnecessary time and effort in pursuing the landlord. This was unreasonable.
The ASB procedure states the landlord will consider involvement from a professional witness service for reports of noise nuisance to allow the reports to be independently investigated and confirmed. In February 2022 the landlord referred the resident to a professional witness service, which was in line with the non-legal remedies available for the landlord to explore in such cases. Although the resident declined this offer, it was an appropriate step for the landlord to take given the historic, intermittent reports of noise nuisance.
The landlord had also offered mediation on multiple occasions which the resident declined. The offers of mediation were appropriate because counter allegations had been made against the resident, and this could have helped to find a solution to the dispute. This action was also in line with its ASB procedure for non-legal remedies to help resolve such concerns.
The landlord had generally followed its ASB procedure. It explored a variety of non-legal remedies in response to the resident’s reports. In addition to the offers of mediation and professional witness service, it also sent warning letters and issued an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) in its attempts to resolve the matter. Its response was proportionate and resolution focused.
The landlord has evidenced it was proactive in working with the police in its attempts to resolve the matter and had held an ASB sharing meeting in February 2022. This was appropriate. The resident had made allegations that, in addition to noise nuisance, her neighbour had been verbally abusive and threatening on numerous occasions. It had been agreed at the sharing meeting that such allegations should be reported directly to the police. The landlord appropriately gave this advice to the resident, which it reiterated multiple times, including in both its complaint responses. The landlord said it could only take tenancy enforcement action on the back of the police action.
In its final complaint response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said it investigated the resident’s allegations but did not have evidence to commence legal proceedings against the neighbour. It reiterated that all incidents of a criminal nature, such as threatening behaviour, had to be reported to the police. It reaffirmed the value of mediation and encouraged the resident to re-consider this. It confirmed its noise team had found no statutory noise nuisance present but encouraged the resident to give the noise team the opportunity to assess future incidents by reporting noise nuisance as instructed.
Overall, there is evidence the landlord acted proportionately and generally followed its procedures by opening an ASB case, completing a risk assessment, working with other agencies/departments and made referrals to mediation services and witness services. It offered and/or made appropriate referrals in attempting to support the resident and resolve the issues.
However, the landlord did not fully adhere to its ASB policy when managing the resident’s case. It did not carry out a risk assessment when it should have and did not provide a clear action plan, which resulted in ineffective communication and unmanaged expectations. This considered, we have found service failure for its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB. As a result, we order the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is an appropriate award to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing request

The resident had expressed a wish to be rehoused because of the issues she had experienced with her neighbour. In a call with the landlord in February 2022 she had said she wanted to move closer to her son.
The landlord provided the resident with information and instructions on applying to its housing register and registering for mutual exchanges on numerous occasions. It also referred her to its Older People and Physical Disabilities (OPPD) team in April 2022 to be considered for sheltered or extra care accommodation and had supported her by searching for mutual exchange opportunities on her behalf. These actions were appropriate. The landlord was pro-actively supporting the resident to maximise her housing options.
The resident had asked for support with her registrations for rehousing and the landlord advised its resident services team could only support vulnerable residents where there was no alternative support in the form of family or next of kin. The resident disputed this, however we acknowledge that landlords must use their limited resources fairly, ensuring support is prioritised to residents with the greatest need. This was reasonable because despite acknowledging that she was vulnerable, it was evident she had support available through her son, who had been supporting her in other ways.
Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing was proportionate and in line with its responsibilities as a landlord. However, after it had told her in June 2023 that her housing application was active, over a year later it said the housing options team were still waiting for documents to complete the application. This delayed the resident’s opportunity to move, and as such we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of her rehousing request. An order is made below for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by this misinformation.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy in operation at the time consisted of an early resolution phase, a complaint phase and a review phase. The policy timescales stated it would make contact following receipt of a complaint within 3 working days. It would then fully respond to a complaint within 15 working days and respond to a review request within 25 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2022. She was dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and response times. She specifically asked the landlord to “treat this email as a complaint”.
This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence of its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord provided us with a copy of an email which it maintained was its stage 1 complaint response. However, the resident provided us with a different document which without doubt is the actual formal stage 1 response. This indicates a record keeping failure.
The landlord did not always use case reference numbers for its complaint communications. It is evident the resident had made several complaints to the landlord, and numerous expressions of dissatisfaction. Whilst this Service understands the challenge of managing multiple complaints from a resident, the landlord is expected to have a system in place to manage complaint cases effectively and maintain accurate records.
The stage 1 complaint response was dated 21 January 2022 but was not sent until 14 February 2022, outside the timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy. We have not seen any explanation for the delay. The response did not give a clear outcome or decision on the complaint, contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy of the time. It did not have due regard for its own policy.
Over a year later in February 2023, the resident raised a second (new) complaint. The landlord responded and the resident asked the landlord to escalate the second complaint immediately. However, the landlord did not progress the new complaint to stage 2. It took 4 months to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request which she had to chase, and when it did it respond, it escalated the wrong complaint. The landlord progressed the original complaint to stage 2 instead of continuing its process for the second complaint. This was poor complaint management and the delay was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 August 2023. This was 6 months after the resident had contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. In its response the landlord referenced correspondence that this Service has not been provided with, which means we cannot be sure the full complaint journey/timeline has been considered. In its response the landlord did not offer an apology for the delay in responding. It summarised its actions and explained its reasons for not upholding the complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings or offer any remedy in its complaint responses.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and not in line with its policy requirements. The complaint journey was not suitably documented, and poor complaint management undoubtedly caused confusion and frustration for the resident. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, and we have made an order below for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This apology should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. pay the resident compensation of £300 which should be paid to her directly and not offset against any money owed. This is made up of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to follow its ASB procedure.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failure regarding the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. £150 for the failings in managing the resident’s complaint appropriately.
3. contact the resident to confirm if she is still experiencing ASB. If so, it should agree a formal action plan detailing the steps it will take, expected timescales and communication plan.
4. confirm what changes or service improvements it has made or plans to make to improve the management and administration of residents’ complaints.
The landlord should provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.