Southern Housing — DARVO, Lawfare and a Disregard for the Facts
Southern Housing issued warnings to a resident without adequately investigating allegations against him or following safeguards in its own policies, the Housing Ombudsman has found. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it had properly investigated his complaints about staff conduct.
The decision concerns Lee, a Southern Housing resident, who says he has been subjected to a wider pattern of treatment he considers harassment. Documents supplied to Housing Sector include warnings about his behaviour, a subsequent “banning letter” threatening legal escalation, and correspondence from advisers challenging the landlord’s approach.
This is not the first time I have raised concerns about Southern Housing. The landlord previously published a video that I considered mocking towards people questioning shared ownership. Given the concerns about its own record, ridiculing those asking difficult questions struck me as a troubling response. Southern Housing subsequently apologised and removed the video.
The cases are different, but both raise questions about accountability and how Southern Housing responds to criticism. In my view, elements of that response resemble DARVO. The documents examined in this article allow readers to assess how the landlord handled challenges to its own conduct.
At the centre of the story is a question about fairness. When a landlord receives allegations against a resident who is also complaining about its staff, how does it establish what happened before using the authority that comes with controlling his tenancy?
The Ombudsman’s decision, issued on 1 July 2025, found maladministration in Southern Housing’s handling of antisocial behaviour allegations against Lee, including staff conduct. It did not determine whether Lee had committed antisocial behaviour, whether his allegations against staff were founded or whether unlawful discrimination had occurred. It separately found no maladministration in the administration of the complaint process, assessing acknowledgments, response times and extensions.
Allegations and conflicting accounts
The Ombudsman’s report traces the dispute to a visit to Lee’s home on 7 May 2024 by a Southern Housing manager and two workers from a support charity. The landlord could not provide notes made at the time of that visit or a further visit to his block in June. This alone is troubling. Either they are unable to track and maintain accurate internal records or, worse still, they operate on the assumption that it is better to lose them.
In July, Southern Housing sought a charity worker’s account after its manager reported being abused by Lee. According to the Ombudsman’s report, both charity workers disputed the manager’s version of his behaviour. One described persistent questioning about complaints but said she had not witnessed shouting, swearing or behaviour she considered abusive.
In a later letter signed by Hardeep Majhail, Southern Housing acknowledged that the witness accounts did not support the allegation and said no warning or tenancy enforcement resulted from that particular incident. It explained that the original allegation remained on file alongside the contrary witness accounts and the outcome. The letter apologised for the distress and offered a senior-manager meeting, while also warning of possible contact restrictions or legal action. The resident disputed its wording; his own correspondence included personal insults and statements that supporters would name employees online, providing relevant context for the landlord’s concerns.
So we now have a manager who appears not to have been present presenting a version of events that those on the ground appear to disagree with.
There is a date discrepancy in the material supplied. Majhail’s letter and the forwarded emails refer to a July 2024 visit, while the Ombudsman’s report dates a joint home visit to 7 May 2024. We cannot establish from these documents whether they describe the same encounter, so the dates should not be treated as interchangeable.
So we now have a manager who appears not to have been present presenting a version of events that those on the ground appear to disagree with. A firsthand account has been modified to suit the narrative and present Lee as the problem. This again is deeply troubling, and had Lee not stood his ground, this would have become the official record of events.
Southern Housing issued a warning in August 2024 referring to an alleged incident in June, when it said Lee had been aggressive towards the manager. The Ombudsman found no evidence that the landlord had first approached him informally and given him an opportunity to change his behaviour, as its unacceptable behaviour policy required. Supporting records made at the time were also missing.
Southern Housing had not demonstrated that it had carried out a risk assessment, investigated the allegations or spoken to Lee before issuing the warning.
A September warning referred to parking across two bays and reports that Lee had threatened or frightened other people in the block. Lee said he used two bays to deter non-residents from parking. The Ombudsman considered a reminder about his parking obligations a reasonable starting point.
But of course, at this point, there appears to have been a complete breakdown of the provider/customer relationship. As such, an informal approach was no longer available in Southern Housing’s toolkit. A gentle reminder was now insufficient, and instead Southern Housing would need to hide behind an unverified account of Lee’s behaviour to control the narrative.
Its findings about the other allegations were more critical. Southern Housing had not demonstrated that it had carried out a risk assessment, investigated the allegations or spoken to Lee before issuing the warning. He was given insufficient information about the behaviour alleged, even allowing for the need to protect people reporting concerns. His requests for further details did not resolve that problem.
Without any of these safeguards, Southern Housing was failing to protect both its resident and its staff. Risk assessments, as we all know, are required. They are more than ‘window dressing’; they exist to protect all parties.
Lee complained that the warnings left him feeling bullied and harassed, and alleged racial victimisation by staff. Southern Housing rejected his allegations and offered mediation. The Ombudsman found that it had not provided evidence of an investigation into his complaints about staff conduct.
Without such an investigation, mediation would be weighted in Southern Housing’s favour, asking Lee to adopt an apologetic position. Without maintaining accurate records and investigating the facts, Southern Housing would be conducting mediation based on ‘he said, she said’ rather than the evidence it should have been able to access.
The report also considered Lee’s own communication. On 27 September 2024, he contacted the manager through LinkedIn, described the allegations as lies and wrote “BRING IT ON”. The Ombudsman considered it reasonable to infer that the contact might have caused staff distress and contributed to the cancellation of a planned meeting. However, Southern Housing had not documented its reasons for cancelling or explained the decision through its unacceptable behaviour policy.
A modern and professional housing association must be able to recognise and understand the constant emotional strain when someone feels unsafe in their home, faces threats of eviction or finds themselves accused of being the perpetrator.
There is, of course, an emotional context to consider in Lee’s defence. Beyond what has been shared here, my conversations with him have made clear that these experiences have left him feeling fragile. He has also experienced the death of a close family member and now provides support to her children.
A modern and professional housing association must be able to recognise and understand the constant emotional strain when someone feels unsafe in their home, faces threats of eviction or finds themselves accused of being the perpetrator. This has taken its toll on Lee. Although we must not condone such outbursts, we should certainly try to understand the circumstances behind them.
These were contested interactions in which staff concerns also required consideration. The Ombudsman’s criticism was that the landlord had not followed the processes needed to reach and explain fair decisions. Its report identified discrepancies between warning letters and staff accounts recorded later, and said Southern Housing had “misrepresented the extent of its investigations” in its complaint response.
The landlord knew an earlier account of Lee’s behaviour had been undermined by witness evidence. The Ombudsman said it should have investigated that matter under its staff code of conduct. Failing to investigate Lee’s complaint effectively would have severely undermined his confidence in the fairness of the process.
Dare one suggest that if your own internal policies aren’t being followed, that’s where the investigation should naturally start? Identifying your own failings and shortcomings will allow you to make an informed decision about any alleged failings or shortcomings of your residents.
The banning letter
The events examined by the Ombudsman ran from May 2024 to January 2025. A letter Southern Housing sent on 19 March 2025 therefore falls outside that decision’s scope. It predates the July determination and should be assessed separately.
What is the correct legal definition of “sniggering or staring at people”?
Signed by Davinia Allen, identified as Area Housing Manager, the “banning letter” listed parking across two bays, “sniggering or staring at staff”, contacting staff through social media and photographing an officer. It acknowledged that Lee’s parking had improved and said its antisocial behaviour manager would review the case and write to him with her findings.
What is the correct legal definition of “sniggering or staring at people”? Good luck proving that in a court of law. Again, it falls into the realm of ‘he said, she said’. What we need to deal with are cold facts.
Photographing someone doing their job does not, in itself, constitute a crime. This is a setting that I imagine has its own CCTV, in an age when we are recorded at every turn. And using social media when all other avenues have been exhausted has become part of the playbook for residents seeking accountability—something a housing manager should be fully aware of.
The letter nevertheless declared that he was in breach of his tenancy agreement by causing “nuisance, harassment, alarm and distress”. It described staff being accompanied while working because of his alleged sniggering or staring, without providing dates or specific examples of that behaviour. It also described social media contact as inappropriate and unacceptable, without distinguishing in that passage between threatening communication and other contact.
The photography allegation was more specific. The letter said that, on 19 March, Lee had begun taking pictures while an officer was working outside and he was in a communal area. Lee says he recorded the encounter to protect himself against another allegation. Housing Sector has not reviewed the original recording.
The letter prohibited aggressive or intimidating behaviour by Lee and his visitors, as well as double parking. It warned that a repeat incident would lead to a notice seeking possession, describing that as the first stage of taking possession of his home. It also said a breach could prompt an injunction application. If an injunction were obtained and breached, the letter warned of possible imprisonment for contempt of court and the use of mandatory possession grounds.
We’re now slipping into an area that the Housing Sector and others call lawfare. At its most extreme, this can involve SLAPPs, strategic lawsuits against public participation. In my view, the language here raises questions about whether legal threats are being used to discourage a resident from challenging the landlord.
Those consequences require further legal steps. A possession notice would not itself end Lee’s tenancy. Imprisonment for contempt would require a court finding, and mandatory possession would depend on the relevant statutory conditions and court proceedings. The letter was not a court order, and the documents reviewed do not establish that a possession notice was subsequently served or an injunction obtained.
Islington Legal Advice Centre agreed and challenged the letter in May 2025, calling it “legally misconceived, confused and inappropriate” and requesting its withdrawal.
The concern is how Southern Housing reached this position. It promised a review while already asserting a tenancy breach and warning of steps towards possession. It did not include supporting witness accounts or explain how the disputed allegations had been tested. Had the incidents been properly recorded and examined, I suspect this escalation might have been avoided. What evidence supported those conclusions, and who reviewed and approved the letter before Allen signed it, remain questions for the landlord.
Islington Legal Advice Centre agreed and challenged the letter in May 2025, calling it “legally misconceived, confused and inappropriate” and requesting its withdrawal. The advisers disputed the lack of particulars and the legal characterisation of the conduct. They said Lee had filmed to protect himself against further allegations, which he disputed.
Southern Housing responded to the advisers, who challenged its explanation in another letter later that month. Housing Sector has not received the complete exchange, and the banning letter’s present status remains unclear. The advisers’ assessment is not a court finding.
A separate Ombudsman decision, dated 18 May 2026, adds to the concerns about Southern Housing’s handling of the facts. In a parking complaint, the landlord claimed its records confirmed it had already explained its position to the resident. The Ombudsman found no documented record of that conversation and concluded that the final response did not accurately reflect the available evidence. It found service failure in both the handling of parking queries and the complaint, ordering compensation and a written strategy to improve evidence-based complaint responses.
What changed after the Ombudsman intervened?
The July decision required Southern Housing to apologise, pay Lee £300 directly and arrange an independent management review of the allegations against him, with findings supplied to Lee and the Ombudsman. It also required evidence of how his complaint against staff had been investigated, including findings or an update if that work remained ongoing. The orders were due within four weeks.
In September 2025, Lee’s advisers challenged the adequacy of the apology and the information provided about the independent review and staff investigation. Housing Sector has not seen the underlying responses, proof of payment or the Ombudsman’s assessment of compliance. That correspondence documents a dispute about the landlord’s response; it does not establish that the orders remain unfulfilled today.
A separate dispute involved contractors installing Lee’s door. In a complaint response dated 13 August 2025, Southern Housing said contractors had reported behaviour they perceived as antisocial, which Lee denied. It said it could not share full details at that stage because of the “legal nature” of the process, while maintaining that his perspective had been considered.
The same response upheld service failures involving cosmetic door finishing, delayed repairs to damage, contractor customer service, insufficient support for Lee’s wellbeing and response delays. Southern Housing said the door had been assessed as compliant with fire-safety regulations and offered £300, separate from the Ombudsman’s award. Payment of either amount has not been verified.
It also said two antisocial behaviour officers would accompany contractors on future visits. The documents establish that written requirement, but do not show whether officers subsequently attended. Those contractor allegations were separate from the events considered in the July decision.
Lee describes the wider sequence as harassment. The formal finding is narrower, but substantial. Southern Housing failed to demonstrate adequate investigation before issuing warnings, did not give sufficient detail about allegations and failed to show that it had investigated his complaints about staff.
A landlord has responsibilities towards staff and residents who report concerns. Exercising those responsibilities fairly also means testing conflicting accounts, explaining decisions and allowing the person accused a meaningful opportunity to respond. The Ombudsman found that essential safeguards had been missing here. The later correspondence leaves a further question about what Southern Housing did to restore them.
This again highlights the ever-increasing gulf between residents and providers. It reflects Housing Sector’s own portrayal of the Messiah complex and the missionary position. Had Southern Housing held documented evidence against Lee, it would have been entitled to use it. Instead, it has relied on inadequate record-keeping, hearsay and ‘he said, she said’, using lawfare to respond to complaints that the Housing Ombudsman found had not been properly addressed.
The Ombudsman found in Lee’s favour on the handling of allegations and staff conduct. At that point, Southern Housing, like any housing association, my own included, should have taken steps to rebuild the relationship. The Ombudsman suggested this in my own case, but GreenSquareAccord never took it up without first imposing further draconian restrictions. In my view, those restrictions shifted the balance, presenting me as the aggressor and the landlord as the victim.
Following our look at DARVO in action within housing associations, Southern Housing’s handling of this case certainly suggests elements of the same pattern.
I have had multiple calls with Lee. He has always been professional, courteous and polite, simply looking for support. There is much more I would have liked to share in this article, and perhaps there will be a follow-up. However, as I have explained to Lee, I can only publish what we can establish through the facts. Perhaps that is a lesson Southern Housing should also consider.
Southern Housing was invited to respond to Housing Sector. No response had been received by 11 October.