Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Southern Housing Group Limited (202200360)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200360

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 May 2023

 

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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour, and her request to be granted a priority move.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident resides in a block of flats. The neighbour referred to in the complaint resides in the same building.
  2. On 4 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour had been harassing her by making unwanted advances towards her. He also shouted at her and behaved in an intimidating manner. The landlord opened a ASB case the same day and advised the resident to call the police if she felt threatened. It also recommended that the resident use a noise app to record any noise nuisance, like shouting. The landlord contacted the resident to investigate her complaint on 2 March 2022.
  3. During the investigation, the landlord sought to clarify the parameters of the complaint and set out an initial action plan. It explained that it could only investigate recent incidents, from the last 12 months, and promised to contact several third-party agencies to work toward resolving this issue. The resident asked the landlord to refrain from contacting the neighbour about her allegations, due to a fear of reprisal.
  4. The landlord sent a summary of the investigation to the resident on 16 March 2022. It detailed the steps it had taken so far. This included contacting the police, adult social services and the environmental health department. The landlord said that it had also attended the property in an attempt to interview the resident’s other neighbours. It asked the resident to provide names of potential witnesses. The landlord encouraged the resident to allow it to engage with the neighbour, so that it would be able to place more formal conditions on him.
  5. The landlord has stated that the resident requested a priority move on 28 April 2022. This was reviewed and denied as the landlord had not been able to identify the necessary evidence to confirm the harassment perpetrated toward the resident. The resident submitted a complaint on 19 May 2022. She was disappointed with the lack of communication from the landlord, and the delays in its investigation of her reports. She was unhappy that her priority move had been declined. She later added that the landlord had failed to deal with her reports sensitively and had not taken the issue seriously.
  6. The landlord responded on 19 July 2022. It apologised for failing to contact the resident within 24 hours of her initial report of ASB, and for any subsequent delays. It detailed the steps it had taken to investigate the reports, including its collaboration with other agencies. The landlord explained that it needed evidence of the harassment to take further action against the neighbour for a tenancy breach. It explained that it was hindered by not being able to approach the neighbour. The landlord could also not approve a tenancy transfer, as there was not currently any demonstrable evidence of harassment.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2022. She complained that the landlord had not kept her updated throughout its investigation. She also felt that her case had not been taken seriously by the landlord. The landlord sent its stage two response on 26 August 2022. It acknowledged that it could have provided more general updates to the resident. It stated that it took all reports of ASB seriously and that it would feedback to its team about the importance of handling the reports sensitively. The landlord explained that at that time, it did not have enough evidence to take any further steps against the resident’s neighbour.
  8. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that her ASB case was not investigated properly and was delayed. As an outcome, the resident would like the landlord to take action in regard to her reports of ASB, and for it to allow her to undertake a priority move.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. Under paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The resident has mentioned other aspects of her living conditions, which she said added to her need to be considered for a priority move. However, these aspects have not been raised in the same complaint as the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment. The resident is encouraged to discuss her additional complaints with the landlord, and if necessary to raise them as a formal complaint. If she continues to be dissatisfied, the resident should bring those aspects to this Service for investigation, once they have completed the landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour, and her request to be granted a priority move.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that residents must not interfere with the way of life, or do anything which causes offence to another resident. The landlord will encourage and/or assist victims in seeking legal remedy in the courts. It may also take legal action against a perpetrator, which may result in them losing their home. Additionally, the landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused harassment, alarm or distress to any person. Under the policy, the landlord can take further actions such as mediation, verbal warnings, visits, and acceptable behaviour contracts. The landlord will respond to each report in accordance with its perception of risk. It aims to contact residents within 24 hours of a report for high-risk cases, or within two working days for medium to low risk cases.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will take all cases seriously and treat all those affected by ASB with sensitivity. The landlord will ensure that all reports are treated with confidentiality and will not disclose personal data unless it is permitted to do so. Once an initial assessment has been made, the landlord should inform the resident of its intended next steps and any associated timescales. It will investigate the report, and gather evidence to support any further action. This can involve interviewing the resident, issuing noise monitoring equipment and diary sheets, reviewing CCTV, and collaborating with third parties.
  3. The landlord will review all of the evidence that it gathered and consider if there is sufficient evidence of ASB taking place or not. The landlord should not take action which is disproportionate or unjustified. It should take the time to explain why it cannot act to the resident, including any legal limitations. A case should be closed when the landlord does not have enough evidence to take further action and there are no ongoing incidents.
  4. The landlord has not disputed that it was delayed in responding to the resident’s initial reports of harassment. The resident first reported the issue on 4 Feb 2022, yet the landlord did not contact her to conduct an interview until a month later, on 2 March 2022. This was not appropriate, as the landlord’s ASB policy states that it should be in contact within one-two days.
  5.  After a report of ASB being perpetrated by one of its residents toward another, the landlord would be expected to work in-line with the above ASB policy, and undertake information gathering exercises. This would be to establish if there was sufficient evidence of harassment to undertaken preventative, or enforcement measures against the perpetrator. In this case, once the landlord began to investigate the resident’s report, it acted appropriately by taking numerous steps to try and find supporting evidence of her reports of harassment.
  6. In its interview on 2 March 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by trying to establish the parameters of the resident’s reports. It worked to ascertain the current risk level and the appropriate steps it could take. The landlord coordinated with local police and their safer neighbourhood team. It also reviewed CCTV for the area and contacted local agencies which may have already been assisting the neighbour with his mental health. The landlord supplied diary pages for the resident, and a noise app, as she had complained that the neighbour had been shouting at her at night. It also visited the property and talked to neighbours, looking for witnesses to help corroborate the resident’s reports.
  7. Unfortunately, the landlord has been unable to find sufficient supporting information to allow it to take further action. Although this would understandably be distressing for the resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to conclude that it could not justify any actions against the neighbour at that time. This is because ASB allegations are serious, and the landlord would not be able to enforce its tenancy agreement against the neighbour without any supporting evidence. The landlord has explained that it coordinated with the police, who also agreed that there is currently insufficient evidence to take punitive actions against the neighbour. The landlord states that the police have also closed their case regarding the ASB reports. The landlord has explained that without approaching the neighbour, there is little it can do at present due to a lack of supporting evidence.
  8. The resident has stated that she does not feel that the landlord acted appropriately in its decision to refuse her a priority move. The landlord’s priority moves (PM) policy states that to be considered for a PM, the resident must satisfy its criteria, and provide any applicable evidence. A move due to anti-social behaviour will only be considered in exceptional cases. The abuse would need to have been investigated and to be significantly impacting the resident’s quality of life, or risking their safety. The policy also states that the landlord will have exhausted all other possibilities of resolution before considering approving a move, as this will not address the behaviour of the perpetrator. A priority move under medical grounds will be considered where a resident is unable to enter and leave their property, due to a medical condition or disability.
  9. The policy states that residents will usually be required to provide some independent confirmation from a relevant agency to be considered for a priority move, for example from the police or a medical practitioner. In some cases, the landlord may decide enough evidence has already been collected as part of the management or investigation of the situation, and therefore will not require further evidence. On receipt of a priority move request, the landlord will ascertain if the resident’s need to move is in line with its policy. It is only then that the application will be passed to a panel for review.Where a customer is not eligible, the landlord must signpost the resident to other moving options, such as mutual exchange or joining the Local Authority waiting list.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately by considering the resident’s evidence, to establish if she met the criteria for a PM. It concluded that she did not, as both she and the landlord had been unable to establish sufficient evidence of the reported harassment. It also assessed the resident against the PM criteria on medical grounds. After reviewing the resident’s evidence, the landlord concluded that as the resident was not prevented from leaving the property due to a medical condition, it could not approve the move on medical grounds. This was reasonable, as she was unable to evidence that she met the policy’s criteria. The landlord again acted in line with its policies, by writing to the resident of its decision on 28 April 2022. It also informed her of the other options for finding alternative housing on 30 April 2022.
  11. The landlord acted appropriately in its first complaint response by acknowledging that it had been delayed in responding to her initial reports of ASB. It explained the steps that it had taken to investigate her complaint, and detailed its attempts to support the allegations with evidence. In its second response, the landlord explained to the resident that it had taken the steps to investigate because it took her reports very seriously. It apologised if it had given the impression in its original interview that it was trivialising her report. It promised to feed this back to the relevant teams, and to improve on how it conducted interviews in the future. The landlord explained that it was bound by its policies to keep any confidential information private. It stated that this would also apply to information regarding the neighbour. However, it acknowledged that it could have provided more general updates to the resident. It acted appropriately by apologising to her for this oversight.
  12. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised for its initial delay, and subsequent failure to keep the resident updated in its investigation. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the lack of communication by the landlord would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident, requiring her to chase for a response. Although the landlord was taking numerous steps to investigate the resident’s reports, due to a lack of communication, the resident was losing faith in its ability to solve her ASB issues. Therefore, to put matters right, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered some compensation for its initial delay and failure to adequately communicate. This would have recognised the resident’s distress in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. If the landlord’s investigation proves complex, it can extend the deadline by a maximum of a further 10 working days. If the resident escalates their complaint, the landlord will respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident sent a written complaint to the landlord on 19 May 2022. The written complaint differed to the landlord’s understanding of a verbal complaint made by the resident. It therefore wrote to the resident on 24 May 2022, and asked her to clarify her complaint and desired outcome. The resident asked for advice from this Service, receiving the required information on 14 June 2022. The landlord received the resident’s updated complaint on 21 June 2022, acknowledging it the next day. It found the details of the case to be complicated, and so extended the response deadline on 5 July 2022. It sent its stage one response on 19 July 2022.
  3. The landlord is expected to raise a complaint in a timely manner and respond to it within the above timeframes. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to clarify the nature of the resident’s complaint. It was unsure if the verbal complaint was in addition to or was being replaced by her written complaint. Defining the points that the resident was unhappy with, and understanding her desired outcome allowed the landlord to provide a more streamlined and appropriate response to the resident.
  4.  The resident escalated her complaint on 11 August 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 August 2022, apologising for the delay in escalating her complaint. It responded on 26 August 2022, again apologising for the slight delay in escalating to stage two. This was appropriate, as the landlord is expected to escalate the resident’s complaint in a timely fashion. Whilst there was a delay in it escalating the complaint, the landlord’s response itself was in line with the response timescales set out in its complaint policy, and therefore the resident was not greatly impacted by the initial tardiness in escalating her complaint. As such, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s acknowledgment of its slight delays and its apology, offers sufficient redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB by a neighbour, and her request to be granted a priority move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the delays in its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
  1. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the landlord’s delay in responding to her reports of ASB.
  2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of its lack of communication regarding the resident’s ASB case.
  3. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider discussing the resident’s options regarding her ASB case with the resident. It should reiterate that it can approach the neighbour, to discuss the allegations and provide a deterrent for further contact.