Southwark Council (202416413)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416413

Southwark Council

8 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 response to the resident’s reports of foxes causing noise nuisance and disturbance.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlords complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The complaint was brought through the landlord’s complaint procedure and to the Ombudsman by the resident’s son. For clarity, both the resident and the resident’s representative are referred to as “the resident” in this report. The resident’s younger son has autism and epilepsy.
  2. In June 2019, the landlord started major works on the block to construct new homes on the estate. In June 2022, the landlord cancelled the works because of issues with the contractor obtaining building control approval. On 28 January 2024, the resident reported that foxes were residing in building materials left against the rear of the garden fence of their property. He reported that the foxes had been causing disturbance and noise nuisance for several months.
  3. On 4 April 2024, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. He said that he had been chasing the landlord for over 2 months to resolve the issue but nothing had been done. He said that the issues were affecting a vulnerable person with autism and epilepsy. As a resolution, the resident wanted the landlord to remove the building materials or cover and fence it so that the foxes could not reside there.
  4. On 19 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint for the delay in resolving the issue. It advised that it had consulted pest control but foxes are protected by law. It said it was exploring external specialist assistance to remove the foxes and would keep the resident updated. It said that removing the building material would not resolve the issue as there were other areas on the site where the foxes could take refuge.
  5. On 9 May 2024, the resident escalated the complaint because there was no progress to resolve the issue and the foxes continued to cause noise nuisance and disturbance.
  6. On 8 August 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint. It apologised for not keeping the resident informed of its progress and its delay in providing a complaint response. It offered £50 for this service failing. It found no issue with its handling of the matter because of government guidelines around foxes. It said that it had contacted its contractor several times to begin the work. It also said that it was talking with management about bringing in specialists to remove the foxes.
  7. On 11 August 2024, the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman. He remained unhappy that the noise nuisance and disturbance was ongoing. The foxes resided in the building materials to the rear of the property next to the bedrooms. It was affecting a vulnerable member of the household who had autism and epilepsy and would no longer use the garden because of the issue. He felt the compensation offer of £50 was not adequate. As a resolution, he wanted the landlord to remove the building materials and wanted the compensation reviewed.

Events after the internal complaint process

  1. On 18 September 2024, the landlord removed the building materials.
  2. On 9 October 2024, the landlord held a meeting with residents, councillors, and community representatives to discuss the ongoing delays to the major works programme. The landlord apologised for how the major works had been handled and the distress caused. It said residents will be offered £4600 compensation for the distress when it begins the major works in early 2026.
  3. On 25 February 2025, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord through our mediation process and advised that as a resolution, the resident would accept £1500 compensation.
  4. On 7 March 2025, the landlord said it would pay the resident £1500 compensation but would deduct this amount from the future compensation it intended to pay in early 2026. On 13 March 2025, the landlord withdrew the offer stating that it was concerned that other residents of the block would flood its complaints system.
  5. On 16 May 2025, when providing evidence to the Ombudsman the landlord said it would pay the resident £1500 and a further £3100 when other residents receive their compensation payment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the landlord’s failings caused ongoing emotional distress to a vulnerable member of the household. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foxes causing noise nuisance and disturbance.

  1. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with its correspondence with its contractor about removing or securing the building materials near the resident’s property. However, the evidence indicates that it was hampered by the contractors lack of engagement over the issue. After the initial report by the resident, it updated the resident for the first 2 months that it was contacting the contractor to resolve the issue. Ultimately, the landlord discontinued the services of the contractor. Nevertheless, the contractor was an agent of the landlord and its failure to take action does not lessen the landlord’s responsibilities and obligations to the resident.
  2. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to remove the building materials from the rear of the property. The landlord said that this would not resolve the issue, however it was exploring the possibility of engaging outside specialist assistance to remove the foxes. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any communication with outside specialists or indeed any internal communication in which it considered engaging specialist assistance. This was inappropriate. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has taken the actions that it said it would to resolve the complaint.
  3. The landlord removed the building materials 7 months after the initial report by the resident and this resolved the issue. This delay was significant when considering the household vulnerabilities. The resident reported that the foxes screaming was impacting his brother who suffered with autism and epilepsy and did not feel comfortable or safe using the rear garden. This was particularly distressing when considering the close proximity of the materials to the resident’s rear garden and bedrooms. The landlord demonstrated a lack of empathy to the household vulnerabilities.
  4. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foxes causing noise nuisance and disturbance. This is because it delayed in taking action to remove or secure the building materials, it failed to demonstrate that it considered the agreed action of specialist assistance, and it failed to demonstrate consideration for the household vulnerabilities and its responsibilities under the Equality Act.
  5. An order of £400 has been made below to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This order has been made in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling 

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response beyond its timescales. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failing. This failure was further exacerbated by the fact that it had given an extended target timeframe to the resident, yet it exceeded this timeframe by a considerable amount of time. In total the landlord failed to provide the stage 2 complaint response 43 working days beyond its time scale. The landlord apologised for this failing and offered £50. This was reasonable for this service failing.
  3. The Code sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
  4. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, it said that it was “unable to find fault with the service’s position regarding their handling of the matter due to the requirement to follow government guidelines in relation to foxes”. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took any measures to put things right for the resident at that point. It had not taken any action to address the issue and it has not provided any evidence that it consulted with specialist services to remove the foxes, as it said it would at stage 1. This was a failing which the landlord should have acknowledged and put right.
  5. The landlord’s complaint responses demonstrated a lack of empathy to the vulnerabilities reported in the resident’s household. In fact, the complaint responses failed to acknowledge the household vulnerabilities at all. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s circumstances and failed to provide appropriate redress to put things right.
  6. A landlord’s failing will not necessarily have the same impact to all residents and consideration should have been given to the individual circumstances of the complaint. The evidence shows that the complaint issue particularly impacted the resident as the foxes resided so near to the rear of the property and exacerbated distress caused to a vulnerable individual.
  7. The landlord held a meeting with residents of the block 2 months after it issued its stage 2 complaint response.It agreed to pay compensation of £4600 in 2026 to all residents for the distress caused by the delay in its handling of major works and a number of associated issues including disrepair and ASB in the communal areas. The landlord’s decision to apportion this compensation to the resident’s complaint was inappropriate.
  8. It is reasonable to separate the general compensation that the landlord offered all residents from the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord should have identified its failings at stage 2 and made an appropriate offer of redress at that point, which was 2 months prior to the offer of compensation to all residents of the block. Furthermore, while the compensation offered to all residents represents the general distress caused, the resident’s complaint was in relation to a specific issue separate from the general compensation offered.
  9. The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because the landlord failed to effectively use its complaints process to put things right for the resident. Its complaint response lacked empathy and failed to acknowledge the household vulnerability and impact on the resident. An order of £200 has been made below in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of foxes causing noise nuisance and disturbance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is ordered for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation, compromising:
    1. £400 distress and inconvenience caused by its failures
    2. £200 for failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. If the landlord has already paid £50 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this can be deducted from the amount.
  4. The landlord should write to the resident to acknowledge that the compensation for this complaint is separate from the future compensation it agreed to make all residents of the block.
  5. The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.