From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Southwark Council (202415210)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415210

Southwark Council

9 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The resident has a young child.
  2. The resident reported ASB from the neighbour in the property below. She told the landlord that those in the flat below repeatedly threw balls at the ceiling. She said this caused a banging noise and shook her property which disrupted their enjoyment of the home. Additionally, she told the landlord she felt harassed by the neighbour and their children.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 May 2024. She was unhappy with the ongoing ASB and that it had not yet resolved the issues. She said it had evidence of the noise nuisance. However, the neighbour had refused mediation, and the landlord had not yet issued an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) which it said it would. She said cannabis smells entered her property too. She said she reported the issues to the local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) team and the police. She added that EH told her this was a housing issue.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 31 May 2024. It said:
    1. It had installed a noise recording machine in January 2024. This showed “isolated thudding sounds” which were not continuous. Further videos submitted by the resident showed “low” thudding noises. It asked her to report further noise issues to EH to evidence the issues she experienced.
    2. It met with her neighbour to discuss the reports, which they disputed. It said the neighbour had given her a peace offering but the noise continued afterwards.
    3. She had reported harassment and intimidation from the neighbour and their children and visitors. It asked the police about this who advised there were no further issues after the peace offering.
    4. It had sent a letter to all residents in the block. This was a reminder that smoking in a communal area is a breach of tenancy conditions. It had also asked the police to increase their presence in the area. It asked her to report any further cannabis smells so it could monitor this.
    5. It had inspected her property. It did not find any gaps or areas which allowed smells into the home.
    6. The neighbour had originally refused mediation, but they had now agreed to take part in this. It explained that agreeing to mediation or signing an ABC is not mandatory for residents.
    7. It empathised with the impact the issues caused to her and her child’s health. However, it needed evidence of the ASB before it could take any legal action.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 5 June 2024. She said she wanted it to take legal action to stop the ASB. She said it had evidence of the thudding noises from throwing balls inside. She said her neighbour was “volatile” and the issues impacted their health. She also disputed that it had inspected her property to investigate the cannabis smells entering her property.
  6. On 8 November 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident. It apologised for its delayed response. It reiterated that it needed evidence of the noise and harassment to take legal action against the neighbour. It apologised for incorrectly saying it had inspected the property following the cannabis smell reports. It asked her to report this as a repair if this remained an issue.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She wants the landlord to either take legal action against her neighbour or for it to rehouse her. The complaint became one we could consider on 4 June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience ASB issues. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident may raise a new complaint to the landlord for any matters which have occurred since the final complaint response if needed.
  2. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports impacted the health of her and her child. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes any distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. Part of the resident’s preferred outcome is for the landlord to rehouse her. We understand her reasons for this. However, it is beyond our remit to order the landlord to do so. Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its legal obligations, policies and procedures, and best practice.

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB procedure considers noise-related issues and nuisance from neighbours as medium risk cases. For such cases, it will complete a risk assessment within 3 working days. The landlord completed a risk assessment which was appropriate to establish and reduce any risks to the resident. However, it did not date the risk assessment. As such, we do not know whether it completed this in a timely manner in line with its procedure.
  2. Nevertheless, throughout this time, the landlord engaged with the resident and various agencies such as the police and EH. Therefore, the landlord was aware of any developments and risks related to the ASB issues. This likely mitigated the impact of any potential delay in completing the formal risk assessment.
  3. The resident was concerned about cannabis smells entering her property. She believed the smells entered through a gap in her kitchen. The resident told us she had reported the smells previously, however, there is no evidence to show this. The landlord’s initial response would have understandably been confusing and disappointing to the resident. It incorrectly advised it had inspected her property about this previously. However, it put this right by apologising for its error in the final response.
  4. The landlord said if the issues continued, the resident could report this as a repair. This was appropriate. It was unclear if it needed to complete any repairs as the resident mentioned she had completed some works herself to stop the smells. Nevertheless, its response shows it was committed to putting things right.
  5. In January 2024, noise monitoring equipment was installed in the resident’s property. After reviewing the recordings, the landlord initially said it did not hear any noises such as balls or thudding. However, after the resident disputed this, the landlord agreed to review this again. This was appropriate. It ensured 2 staff members unrelated to the ASB case reviewed the noise. It then explained that the recordings showed a “low thudding sound” which was not excessive, unreasonable or continuous. As such, it asked her to continue to report noise.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for further evidence of the ASB. The landlord must have evidence of the reported issues to ensure it takes fair and proportionate steps to resolve this. Therefore, while it picked up some thudding, in line with its ASB procedure and statutory guidance, it needed further evidence. To take legal action, it needed to have evidence of a breach of tenancy. We are satisfied that the landlord provided an appropriate explanation to the resident to support its conclusion.
  7. The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the issues following the resident’s reports of ASB. This was in line with its ASB procedure and statutory guidance. For example, it:
    1. Engaged with the police and EH to share information about the issues reported.
    2. Considered each report and video evidence submitted by the resident.
    3. Encouraged her to keep reporting incidents to gather evidence of the issues.
    4. Managed expectations of needing further evidence to support any legal action against the neighbour.
    5. Arranged mediation and considered issuing an ABC to the neighbour to try to prevent and resolve the ASB.
    6. Was transparent in explaining that the success of mediation and an ABC would result from the willingness of the neighbour.
  8. While this action was appropriate, the landlord missed opportunities to manage the ASB appropriately in other aspects. For example:
    1. After removing the noise monitoring equipment, it took a further 5 months to request for a professional witness to attend the property. It requested this in July 2024. During this time, the resident reported further ASB and provided letters from her GP and her child’s school explaining the impact caused to them by the ASB. It would have been good practice for it to have arranged this sooner given these concerns. By not doing so, it understandably missed opportunities to reassure the resident that it took her concerns seriously.
    2. It then took a further 3 months for the landlord to approve the professional witness referral in October 2024. This delay would have understandably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
    3. It advised her to report issues to EH. However, when she did this, EH told her to contact her housing officer because the issue was not a statutory nuisance. Despite the resident advising this, the landlord continually told her to report issues to EH regardless. This was confusing. There is no evidence to show it communicated with EH about this. It therefore missed opportunities to resolve this issue for the resident. Instead, it understandably caused her further distress as it was not clear who would investigate her concerns.
    4. There is no evidence that it completed an action plan with the resident. Due to this, it missed opportunities to be transparent about what it would do next to try to resolve the issues reported. However, the resident was also aware that it needed further evidence before taking further action. Therefore, the lack of action plan was a shortcoming in the circumstances.
  9. The resident told the landlord that the ASB issues impacted her health and that of her child. She provided supporting letters to show this. The evidence shows that the landlord was empathetic towards her concerns. It reviewed the information provided by the resident. It also provided regular communication. This was appropriate. While we understand the resident’s concerns, the landlord’s actions were limited without evidence of the reported issues.
  10. Related to this, the landlord told us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. This is concerning as it has provided us with a copy of an email from May 2022 where the resident listed her medical conditions. It is important that the landlord maintains records about any vulnerabilities. Such information may be relevant to consider any reasonable adjustments or additional factors needed when managing tenancies. As such, we have made a relevant order about this.
  11. The resident said she wanted to move to another property if the landlord could not take legal action against her neighbour. The evidence shows the landlord provided advice to her about joining the housing register. It also explained options for moving through a mutual exchange. Additionally, it mentioned arranging a social welfare panel review meeting to advocate for her rehousing. This was appropriate as it showed it considered the resident’s concerns and wanted to help.
  12. In line with the landlord’s allocations policy, it can only consider a management move in urgent cases. This includes where there is a threat to life or where the police recommend a move due to threats towards the household. As there is no evidence supporting this, the landlord’s decision to not offer a management move was reasonable in the circumstances.
  13. The resident said she felt the neighbour and their family harassed and intimidated her. In July 2024, she provided video footage of them climbing onto a flat roof which looked onto her kitchen window. The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the issue with access to the roof and it engaged with the police. It reassured her that this was to retrieve a lost ball and the neighbour agreed to not do so again. It was good practice and appropriate for it to look into the issues so quickly and offer this reassurance. This showed it took her concerns seriously.
  14. This occurred within the same week as a mediation session which resulted in a safeguarding concern raised for the safety of the resident and her child. The resident was understandably concerned and distressed by this. Following this, the landlord also received contact from the local authority’s family services asking about any safety concerns towards the family. However, it is unclear what the landlord did in response to this. It is a significant concern that it cannot evidence whether it responded to the safeguarding matters raised.
  15. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it can arrange a problem-solving case conference where other agencies are involved. It explains that doing so allows a multi-agency approach to share information, create an action plan and resolve the issues. There is no evidence to show that it arranged this, despite various agencies being aware of the issues. This included the police, EH, the local authority’s family services, the resident’s GP and her child’s school. It is unclear why it did not consider doing so in line with its procedure. This was a further missed opportunity to help investigate and resolve the resident’s concerns.
  16. Overall, the landlord took some appropriate action in response to the ASB reports. It managed the resident’s expectations about needing evidence of a breach of tenancy. It also offered her support with her rehousing and tried informal methods to resolve the ASB issues. However, it missed opportunities to help the resident gather evidence in a timely manner, to clarify who to report noise issues to, and to consider any safeguarding risks posed to the family. As such, it did not act appropriately or in line with its ASB policy. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  17. Considering the above, the landlord should pay the resident £550 compensation. This is to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of her ASB reports. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which impacted the resident. We have also made relevant orders below to help progress the ASB case.

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) outlines how landlords must respond to complaints. At stage 1, landlords must respond within 10 working days of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
  2. At stage 1, the landlord responded appropriately in line with the Code and its complaints policy.
  3. At stage 2, the landlord took a total of 112 working days to respond. This was an additional 92 days beyond its target timescale. This was not appropriate. During this time, the resident asked for updates on 3 occasions. The landlord’s lack of response prompted her to seek support from us. We then contacted the landlord twice to ask it to respond, which it later did.
  4. The resident should not have to chase the landlord or contact us to receive a response to her complaint escalation. This would have understandably caused her time and trouble in doing so. Additionally, she also understandably felt it did not take her complaint and concerns seriously. By not providing updates about the delays, the landlord missed opportunities to manage her expectations. It also failed to act in line with its policy or the Code, which was a failing.
  5. Within the final complaint, the landlord apologised for the delayed response. While it was appropriate to acknowledge this, it failed to consider the impact caused to the resident and whether any other action was required to put things right. Given the delay, we consider that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident some compensation for the distress and inconvenience she was caused. We consider the landlord should pay £150 compensation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance for failings which did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing regarding the failures identified within this investigation.
    2. Pay £700 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This consists of:
      1. £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB.
      2. £150 for the time and trouble caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Arrange a case conference with the relevant agencies involved and aware of the ASB issues. It should request attendance from the police and EH as a minimum as both agencies are aware of the issues. This is in line with its ASB procedure. It should then provide us with a summary of what was discussed.
    4. Write to the resident regarding the ASB issues she has reported. This should include:
      1. Advice on how and where to report further noise issues.
      2. An explanation of why the confusion occurred when she reported the noise issues to EH as it advised her to.
      3. An action plan of what steps it will take to investigate and try to resolve the ASB issues.
    5. Contact the resident to ensure that its internal systems are up to date. This should include relevant information about any vulnerabilities or underlying conditions within the household.
  2. The landlord should respond to us within the timescale set out above with evidence of compliance.