Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Southwark Council (202119518)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119518

Southwark Council

25 May 2022


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 the resident’s request to be transferred.
  2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the property.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  3. Paragraph 39(m) of the scheme state that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman considers complaints about how a local authority manages and assesses housing applications under its allocation policy and if the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint, he will need to refer it to that organisation.

Background and summary of events 

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced on 20 February 2017. The information provided advises the resident has health related issues. 
  2. On 7 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about anti-social behaviour. The resident stated that he had been having issues with the neighbours since moving into the property. He made reports of the following:
  1. Allegations of loud music.
  2. Allegations of banging on the wall.
  3. Allegations that the neighbour’s property was being sublet illegally.
  4. Allegations individuals would squat there, drink and take drugs.
  5. Allegations the neighbour was using a device which interferes with his radio and television that burned his TV.
  6. Allegations a device was interfering with the water connection.
  1. The landlord responded on 11 June 2021 explaining the steps and approach it would take regarding the allegations. It attempted to get in touch with the neighbour on several occasions but was not successful. It informed the resident if it was unable to resolve the matter it would refer the issue to its mediation team.
  2. Following these allegations, the landlord arranged for an independent mediation service, who are a resolution service that provides mediation and professional witnesses in conflicts relating to anti-social behaviour to attend the property on 9 July 2021, to discuss the issues with the neighbour. The neighbour said due to his work he is not in most of the time. He was adamant that he did not smoke cannabis, or bang on the walls or doors of the resident. He also advised that he did not know the resident and had no issues with him. The neighbour also agreed to sign a good neighbour contract which the resident was made aware of.
  3. This agreement stated that he would not do the following:
  1. Bang on the adjoining wall or front door of the resident’s property.
  2. Intimidate, harass, or threaten the resident.
  3. Play music at excessive levels.
  4. Smoke cannabis in the property.

 

  1. The landlord received no further contact from the resident or his neighbour until November 2021, when the resident complained about similar issues regarding noise. On 16 November 2021 the resident’s service officer informed the resident that it had spoken with the neighbour who denied the allegations of his noise complaint. It provided the resident with further contact details for it he wished to report any further noise nuisances.
  2. On 18 November 2021, the landlord sent a further letter to the resident to inform him that it had attempted to get in touch with the resident on 5 occasions via a home visit, voice message, calls and text messages with no success. It provided the resident with contact details should he experience noise issues in the future.
  3. A joint visit by the resident’s service officer and the landlord’s anti-social behaviour team was carried out on 20 November 2021 to assess the neighbour’s property and allegations of sub-letting. Following residency checks everyone present was found to be a family member of the neighbour.
  4. The resident was unhappy and contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service. This service wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. In response the landlord emailed this service to advise the resident had previously raised this complaint but did not escalate the matter. It said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure for the resident.
  5. During January 2022, the resident contacted this service to say he had not been provided with an outcome to his complaint.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 25 January 2022. It sincerely apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. In regard to anti-social behaviour, it explained that it found little evidence to support the claims being made. It also explained that despite numerous calls to the police throughout the tenancy agreement the police also found no evidence to support the claims.

Assessment and findings 

 

Anti-social behaviour

  1. It is not the role of this Service to establish whether someone has committed anti–social behaviour, but rather we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti–social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own internal policies and best practice in the sector.
  2. The tenant handbook about respecting others stipulates what anti-social behaviour is and how residents are expected to deal with the matter. It states in instances where a resident is unable to resolve the issue with a neighbour it will intervene by doing the following:
  1. Advise who is dealing with the issue.
  2. Liaise with the local authority anti-social behaviour team and other agencies such as the police.
  3. Provide incident diary to record incidents.
  4. Discuss the issue with the alleged perpetrator.
  1. In this instance, as the resident had made repeat claims against his neighbours about anti-social behaviour, the landlord proceeded to investigate the matter further and provided the resident with a resident service officer to help deal with the matter.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord responded and informed the resident of the steps it would take to resolve the matter. It attempted to contact the neighbour several times and then proceeded to visit the neighbour’s property on 10 July 2021 to discuss the alleged anti-social behaviour. The neighbour said he was at work most of the time and was unaware of the issues being complained about. He also denied the allegations. Despite this, the landlord arranged for the neighbour to sign a good neighbour agreement. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord took positive steps to try and resolve the matter in line with its guidelines and based on the evidence available to it.
  3. The landlord has stated that the resident had chosen not to complete noise/incident diaries, but it is aware that on numerous occasions the resident had contacted the police regarding the issue. It said that the police did not see any evidence to substantiate his concerns about drink or drug misuse.
  4. The landlord also arranged for an inspection and identity check of the neighbour on 20 November 2021 but found no evidence to support his previous claims being made.
  5. Overall, the evidence shows when the resident complained about his neighbours, the landlord was proactive in trying to resolve the issue. In handling these allegations of antisocial behaviour from the resident, the landlord followed its policies and procedures, with consideration to both the resident and the neighbours. Whilst the Ombudsman understands that these issues have caused distress and upset to the resident, this Service considers that the landlord’s actions have been appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the evidence available to it.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge receipt of complaints within three working days, the time limit for a full response is 15 working days for the complaint phase and 25 working days for the review phase.
  2. In this instance when the landlord was informed by this service that the resident wished to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 23 November 2021 it should have provided a response by 8 December. This service had to further chase a response for the resident and the landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 25 January 2022.
  3. This service has seen no evidence to explain why the landlord was delayed in providing the resident with a response. It is good practice for the landlord to adhere to its guidelines and keep the resident informed should the process take longer than usual. This service has not seen evidence the resident was chasing the landlord for a response during this time; however, he did get in touch with this service. We understand the frustration this would have caused to the resident, however the landlord clearly acknowledged and sincerely apologised for this. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is considered a reasonable response to the delays in its complaint handing, considering all of the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of anti- social behaviour in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. This service recognises the resident’s concerns and the distress this is causing him. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was proactive in investigating the resident’s concerns of anti-social behaviour in line with its guidelines. After investigation and the involvement of several parties there was no evidence to suggest anti-social behaviour, therefore its response outcome is considered reasonable. 
  2. There is evidence of the landlord failing in adhere to its guidelines when responding to the resident within the expected timeframe. However, this is considered minor as there is no evidence it caused a detriment to the resident.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review its service and complaints handling to ensure residents’ complaints are responded to within the expected timeframe.