Southampton City Council — case 202443016

Decision Case ID 202443016 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southampton City Council Landlord type Local Authority / ALMO or TMO Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 21 January 2026 Background The resident lives in a 2‑bedroom flat on the second floor of a building owned by the landlord. She has vulnerabilities, including autism and mental health difficulties. In June 2024, she reported noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour (ASB) coming from a neighbour’s property. Her reports included noise from pipes, shouting, and threats of violence.

The neighbour then made counter‑allegations against her. The landlord offered independent mediation to both parties, but this did not resolve the issues. The incidents continued and the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. What the complaint is about The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB). The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB.

There was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord did not communicate with the resident effectively, leaving her unaware about how it could assist her with the ongoing issues. Its record keeping was poor, and it could not evidence it had investigated all the resident’s reports. While it acknowledged this and aimed to put things right for the resident there is no indication it has attempted to learn from the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It could not evidence the date the complaints were made, and it did not comply with the Code’s response timeframe. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 23 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 in relation to: £500 – Noise and ASB – already offered to the resident through its complaints procedure, if not already done so.

This is to reflect its delays, failure to evidence all incidents had been actioned and communication failures. £50 – failure to comply with the Complaint Handling Code. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. 23 February 2026 3 Action order The landlord must contact the resident to agree an action plan including timescales of how it intends to resolve the issues. Specific actions must include: • A risk assessment of the resident’s individual circumstances and how the noise and ASB is affecting her in accordance with its ASB policy • How it intends to support the resident throughout the management of the case going forward.

This must include how it intends to monitor the situation to ensure it reaches a lasting resolution. 23 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened June 2025 The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord (date unknown) about how it had handled reports of noise and ASB relating to a neighbour. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2025 and did not uphold the complaint. It explained that: On 23 July 2024, it had referred the case for independent mediation.

This failed because both parties had made allegations against each other, and no mutually acceptable resolution could be reached The Police had been unable to take any action It would investigate the resident’s concern about a dog being kept at the neighbour’s property July 2025 The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 July 2025. It reviewed a chronology of events from June 2024 to June 2025 and summarised the incidents and actions taken.

Its findings were as follows: Noise from banging pipes The resident had repeatedly reported persistent banging pipes since early 2024. She had also provided video footage, which the landlord said offered “compelling evidence of how deeply the situation had affected her daily life, particularly with regard to sleep disturbance and her ability to enjoy her home in peace.” The landlord had attended the property several times but was unable to identify the cause of the noise It failed to follow up with the resident, leaving her without updates The landlord apologised and acknowledged that although the issue had since been resolved, it had caused significant stress.

It identified learning around improving communication during repairs Antisocial behaviour (ASB) According to its records, the resident first reported ASB in July 2024 The allegations included aggressive behaviour by the neighbour, such as shouting, verbal abuse, altercations involving the neighbour and her partner, inappropriate use of an overflow pipe, and a dog being kept at the property The landlord reiterated its earlier explanation regarding the unsuccessful mediation attempt It could not find evidence that a planned visit had taken place, despite attempts to contact the resident in October and November 2024 The landlord concluded that it did not have clear evidence to confirm whether all issues had been fully investigated.

It apologised for its poor communication and lack of action in addressing the ASB and identified areas for improvement. Goodwill offer The landlord offered the resident a goodwill payment of: £300 for the distress caused by its failure to address the ASB and complete follow‑up actions £200 for the distress caused by delays in resolving the banging pipes and for its lack of communication Referral to the Ombudsman January 2025 The resident contacted us because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issues.

She explained that the ongoing ASB had severely affected her, leaving her living in fear and too afraid to leave her home. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Finding Maladministration The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take a victim‑centred approach and resolve cases promptly, using all appropriate tools and legal powers. It commits to assessing the risk of harm to victims, including any vulnerabilities, and to providing suitable support to victims and witnesses. This may include referrals to support services and working with internal teams and external agencies to address and reduce ASB. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported ASB involving a neighbour between June 2024 and June 2025.

The incidents included verbal threats, banging pipes, shouting, swearing, and fighting. The landlord liaised with the Police, but there was not enough evidence for them to act. In July 2024, the landlord referred the case for independent mediation, but this did not lead to a resolution. The landlord’s ASB policy states that, where safe and appropriate, it will use mediation to try to resolve issues before they escalate. In this case, the landlord offered mediation to both parties at an early stage, which was a reasonable and proportionate step to address the concerns without moving straight to more formal enforcement action.

Its approach was therefore appropriate in the circumstances. The mediation was unsuccessful, and the resident escalated her complaint in July 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that it had reviewed all incidents and actions taken over the previous year. It acknowledged 2 key issues: the ongoing noise from banging pipes and the resident’s reports of ASB involving her neighbour. Although the landlord had visited the property several times, initially it had been unable to identify the cause of the pipe noise and had failed to keep the resident updated.

The issue appears to have been resolved around July 2025. It apologised for these shortcomings. In relation to the ASB reports, the landlord reiterated that mediation had been unsuccessful and that, despite attempts to arrange a visit to the resident’s home in October and November 2024, it could not evidence these had taken place. It acknowledged that it could not evidence investigations into all of the issues raised and apologised for its failures, including poor communication.

It offered the resident £500 compensation: £300 for its failures in handling the ASB and £200 for delays in resolving the banging pipes and for its lack of communication. While the landlord made some positive attempts to put things right, it is concerning that it could not evidence all its actions, including its risk assessment. Effective ASB case management relies on robust record‑keeping demonstrating the landlord’s actions to provide assurance that it is complying with its ASB policy.

Additionally, we do not have evidence of the landlord learning to reassure us or the resident that its record‑keeping will improve. It should refer to our Spotlight report, Knowledge, and Information Management (KIM– May 2023), for best practice guidance. It is concerning that, despite the resident reporting that she is living in fear and too afraid to leave her home, the landlord has not provided evidence of its follow up actions agreed in its stage 2 response other than its offer to refer the resident and her neighbour for mediation again.

Given that mediation had previously proven unsuccessful and the resident continued to report ASB, the landlord should have evidenced that it had explored whether other tools such as a tenancy warning or Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC) were appropriate. The resident states she is living in fear of her neighbour, however, despite the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB we do not have a risk assessment to support the current position and therefore we are not assured that mediation is the appropriate action in the circumstances.

Neither do we know how the landlord intends to support the resident moving forward. This is particularly important given the resident’s known vulnerabilities. While the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation was a reasonable amount to reflect its failures and the adverse impact caused to her, we need to be assured the landlord is taking proactive action in managing the ASB case. We have therefore ordered the landlord to take action by making contact with the resident and agreeing an action plan with clear timescales for assisting with the resolution of ongoing issues.

Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The resident submitted a complaint (date unknown). The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 June 2025. However, due to the landlord’s poor record‑keeping, we are unable to determine how long it took to respond or whether it complied with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The resident later escalated her complaint (date unknown). The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 17 June 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 31 July 2025—approximately 32 working days later.

This exceeded the Code’s 20‑working‑day target and was therefore inappropriate. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We consider an apology and £50 compensation to be proportionate in putting things right. This amount of compensation is aligned to our remedies guidance. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record‑keeping was poor, and it was unable to evidence all of its actions in relation to the noise reports, ASB, or its complaint handling.

The landlord should implement learning from this complaint to improve its practices. Communication The landlord’s communication was poor. It should review this complaint and implement learning to improve its communication practices, particularly in relation to ASB and noise reports.