Southern Housing — case 202519498

Decision Case ID 202519498 Decision type Investigation Landlord Southern Housing Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident has reported noise related antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour since 2022. She has previously logged complaints about the landlord’s handling of her reports. Our investigation is focused on the events that followed her ASB report of February 2025. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the resident’s: ASB reports.

Associated formal complaint. Our decision (determination) There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord did not handle the resident’s reports in line with its policy and procedures. This caused avoidable confusion, upset, and delays. The landlord’s overall handling of the complaint was in line with its policy timeframes.

However, we found a minor deviation and a lack of specificity in its response. 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 02 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must provide documentary evidence it has paid directly to the resident £400 compensation (inclusive of the £30 previously offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £300 for its response to her ASB reports (inclusive of the £30 previously offered).

£100 for its response to her formal complaint. No later than 02 March 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 18 February 2025 The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her ASB report of 3 February 2025. She said she had not received a response as promised and was not updated on its planned next steps. She wanted it to respond to her report and advise how it would be dealt with. 3 March 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint.

It apologised for not responding to her report in line with its service standards. It explained this was caused by a backlog after it introduced a new customer relations system. It listed the actions it had since taken to deal with the report and provided an action plan of next steps. It offered £30 compensation (£15 for failure to follow policy/process, £15 for failure to return communication). 3 June 2025 The resident escalated her complaint and said: She asked the landlord to reactivate the noise app, but this was not done.

She wanted to know if a formal letter was sent to her neighbour as promised. She was told the neighbour would put down carpets within 3 weeks, as stipulated within the tenancy agreement, but they did not. She told the landlord, but it had not followed up. She was vulnerable, often unable to use the living room, lacking quiet enjoyment of the property, and had been left unsupported. 5 August 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It did not uphold the complaint, saying: It had investigated the resident’s reports and issued a warning letter as promised.

It apologised for not updating her when access to the noise app was reinstated. It had not promised carpet would be put down by the neighbour; it was only suggested as a possible option to reduce noise. It apologised if it had not made that clear. Flooring was a resident’s responsibility, so it could not install carpet in the neighbour’s property. Further, older tenancy agreements might not specify the type of flooring allowed in a property. It was satisfied appropriate action was taken in response to her reports, and it had offered suitable guidance.

Its ongoing ASB process would review further reports. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said she had been experiencing ASB for 3 years. She had done everything asked of her, but the landlord’s handling had been inconsistent. She had to constantly chase responses and was given conflicting information. She said her mental health and wellbeing were affected. She wanted an apology, improved procedures, prompt contact/updates, and compensation. 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 handling of the resident’s ASB reports Finding Maladministration What we did not investigate The resident told us she had reported ASB for years and was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of it. Complaints should be referred to the landlord (and us) within a reasonable time of the resident first becoming aware of the issue.

Our investigation is focused on the 12 months prior to the current complaint being logged in February 2025. Therefore, the landlord’s earlier handling of her reports is not considered further. However, where relevant, the historical context is noted and reflected in our overall findings. We can only consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its internal complaint process. We do not generally investigate live issues or apply the benefit of hindsight to our investigations.

Therefore, new concerns, even about ongoing issues, must first be raised as a new complaint, and once this has completed the landlord’s internal process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 August 2025. The resident said her health was affected by the landlord’s failure to handle her ASB reports promptly. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused.

The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions caused more general distress and inconvenience. What we did investigate It is not our role to establish the validity of ASB reports made by the resident. Instead, we assess the landlord’s handling of the reports to determine whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s ASB policy says it assesses reports when received to decide next steps. It says it will ask the resident to use diary sheets or a noise app to aid its investigation and will complete a risk assessment to decide action. It says it will agree an action plan with the resident and keep her updated every 15 working days on its progress. The policy says the landlord will investigate reports by interviewing alleged perpetrators, and request information from partner agencies (police and local authority noise team) where relevant.

It aims to resolve cases early to prevent escalation, using tools like warnings and mediation. Where informal action has been unsuccessful, and sufficient supporting evidence is available, it may then take legal action. It will close cases once the behaviour has been resolved. When the resident contacted the landlord in February 2025, she said things had been calm for “a fair while” after her last complaint. This means the neighbour changed their behaviour following the landlord’s earlier involvement.

We appreciate that for the resident the situation has spanned 3 years. However, for around a year there were no reported incidents, until February 2025, when the process started anew. The landlord can reasonably be expected to consider previous incidents to decide next steps, but it would not have been reasonable for it to treat the new report as a continuation of the previous. In handling ASB reports, the landlord’s policy says it will use informal tools to resolve the issue before taking further action.

The resident told the landlord that she would not engage in mediation, as she had done this previously and it was ‘awful’ and ineffective. So, this was not offered. Instead, it contacted the neighbour by phone, email/letter, and home visits to discuss the behaviour. It explained their obligations under the tenancy agreement and gave words of advice, including explaining the consequences of continued breaches. Initially, this had the desired effect as the noise reduced. However, the behaviour then continued so it issued a warning in April 2025.

This was in line with its policy. The landlord’s policy says it will use risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities and the impact the ASB is having on wellbeing. It does not specify a timeframe for completing the risk assessment, only that it will do so once a report is accepted as ASB. The behaviour reported by the resident met its definition of ASB. It says it will incorporate any additional needs or support within its action plan. The resident was open and honest about feeling vulnerable, harassed, and that her mental health and wellbeing were suffering.

She then reported an escalation in behaviour in June 2025. However, a risk assessment was not done until 17 July 2025, 5 months after her first report, when the ASB team took over. A risk assessment should have been completed earlier. An action plan was not shared with the resident (except the one included in the stage 1 response). Informal discussions about next steps took place but a documented plan with a clear timeline of actions should have been drafted and shared. This would have helped to manage her expectations.

She was updated by phone following the warning sent to the neighbour in April 2025. It was agreed that she would monitor the situation and report any new incidents. The landlord kept her largely updated in line with its policy (apart from the missed advised timeframe for contact by the ASB team) but it is not clear if it told her how often she could expect to hear from it. Once the ASB team took over the landlord’s handling became better structured, prompt, and moved at pace.

We have not seen an explanation for why the referral was not made sooner. The resident was offered diary sheets but her access to the noise app was not activated promptly. She requested reactivation of the app on 3 February 2025, but this was not provided until she escalated her complaint in June 2025. If it was activated earlier, we have not seen evidence of the resident being advised of this. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy. The resident asked the landlord to explore adding insulation in the 2 properties.

She acknowledged that given the nature of the noise this was unlikely to resolve the situation but would ‘future proof’ the property. The landlord is not generally obliged to install soundproofing. As a social housing provider, it must ensure that any works are proportionate, relevant, and a justifiable use of funds. It handled the reports under its ASB policy, as it considered the noise was more than everyday household noise, and responded accordingly. This was reasonable. We have not seen evidence that the resident was told the neighbour would install carpets.

Due to the age of the tenancy the landlord could not establish what the neighbour’s tenancy said about flooring. However, where it had told her this was a possibility, it should have then proactively updated her when it knew it could not enforce this. Had a formal action plan been in place to document and track pending and completed actions, this oversight might not have occurred. The landlord’s policy says it works with other agencies in resolving ASB. The resident contacted environmental health and safer communities teams, as well as her local MP.

While the landlord initially told her to contact them(after she had already said she had), it later liaised directly with the relevant teams itself, which was appropriate. We note that matters have moved on significantly since its stage 2 response. A notice to seek possession was served to the neighbour and legal proceedings started. As explained above, this falls outside the scope of our current investigation, but it shows the landlord has continued to engage with the resident and respond to reports, which is what we would expect to see.

The resident has been open about the stress and impact of the situation on her, so we understand her desire for serious action to have been taken sooner. However, the landlord has an obligation to respond and act in a balanced manner. It must exhaust the informal process and build a case for formal action by collecting evidence. Unfortunately, this can take some time, which is unavoidable. Having said that, as noted above, its handling of the matter has not been in line with its policy.

We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It has accepted some failures in its complaint responses (for which it apologised and offered compensation). Our investigation found additional failings for which it has not offered proper redress. The landlord is, therefore, ordered to write to the resident with a sincere apology for the distress, upset, and inconvenience caused by the identified failures. It is ordered to pay a further £270 compensation (in addition to the £30 previously offered).

This figure is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failure to follow its policy, and the distress, upset, and worry caused to her by its failings. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaint policy applicable at the time set out a 2-stage complaint process. It set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (it did not specify an extension timeframe).

At stage 1, if an extension was needed the resident would be advised and given a revised timeframe. At stage 2, if an extension of more than 10 working days was needed, this would have to be agreed with the resident. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days at both stages. It issued its stage 1 response 4 working days later, and its stage 2 response within 40 days. At stage 2, it emailed the resident on the day her response was due to say it needed more time to respond, an added 20 working days.

It gave a revised timeframe, and the response was then issued on the date advised. This was a deviation from its policy which said that an extension beyond 10 working days would have to be agreed with the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 response set out an explanation of its stance on installing carpets in the neighbour’s property. It said, ‘please be advised that some tenancy agreements, typically older tenancy agreements, may not specify the type of flooring permitted in a property.

’ It did not say whether it had consulted the neighbour’s tenancy agreement and this was the case. Or whether it was in the process of doing so and would confirm. Explanations should be clear, specific, and relevant to the issue; not vaguely worded in this way. This means the quality of the complaint response was below expectation. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and pay £100 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information such as emails. This added avoidable delay to our investigation. Communication Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was acceptable. However, it should make its service standards response times clear to its residents from the outset to manage their expectations.