Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413120)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413120

Clarion Housing Association Limited

1 September 2025

 

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:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in September 2021. The property is a one-bedroom second floor flat.
  2. The resident began raising issues about excessive noise from his neighbour living in the flat below in October 2023. The resident complained that his neighbour was talking loud on the phone, playing music loudly and banging on the ceiling of the property.
  3. The landlord opened its first antisocial behaviour (ASB) case in November 2023. The landlord closed the case on 20 December 2023. It said it had not received any evidence to be able to act.
  4. The landlord opened a second ASB case in January 2024. The complaints remained about excessive noise. It closed the case on 20 March 2024. The landlord said it had reviewed evidence sent by the resident but there was not enough to take any action.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 5 June 2024. He was unhappy that he had 2 ASB cases opened since January 2024 and the landlord closed both without taking any action. He also felt he had received little to no response from the landlord over his reports.
  6. The landlord opened a third ASB case in June 2024 and agreed an action plan on 18 June 2024.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 June 2024. It said:
    1. Sorry for the delay in responding to the complaint.
    2. That a warning was issued to the neighbour before it closed the ASB case in March 2024.
    3. That the resident had made three further reports in April, May and June 2024 but these did not meet the threshold for investigation.
    4. Sorry that it had failed to keep contact arrangements it had previously agreed with the resident. It said it would feedback about this to the team.
    5. It opened a new ASB case in June 2024, it advised the resident to fill in diary sheets and agreed to contact him every 2 weeks.
    6. It would award £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 July 2024. The resident said:
    1. The landlord had not actioned anything it had said in the stage 1 response.
    2. He continued to experience noise disturbances from his neighbour.
    3. The noise disturbances were affecting his sleep.
    4. The landlord had not kept in contact with him as agreed.
    5. He would like the landlord to consider soundproofing.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 August 2024. It said:
    1. It acknowledged that the resident had to chase it for contact.
    2. It offered the resident and his neighbour mediation but that the resident had declined this offer.
    3. That the resident could contact environmental health about the issues.
    4. It would visit the neighbour to see if it could offer any help to reduce the noise.
    5. It may consider sound proofing but that it would need to explore other options first.
    6. That it had followed its policies and procedures but would award an additional £50 compensation for the resident having to chase contact.
    7. It had added the £50 compensation awarded at stage 1 to the resident’s rent account.
  10. Following the stage 2 response the resident continued to make reports of noise disturbance from his neighbour. In October 2024 the landlord received evidence that meant it could issue a warning to the neighbour. The resident did not make any further reports and the landlord closed the case on 9 December 2024.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with how the landlord had handled his complaint and contacted this Service. He said that the landlord makes a plan but does not stick to it. He also said the landlord did not keep up with contact arrangements it made.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will investigate cases relating to noise within 5 working days from when the threshold is met. The threshold is:
    1. Three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
    2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
    3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households.
  2. The landlord opened an ASB case in November 2023. Its initial response to the resident’s reports were reasonable. It contacted the resident and set out clear tasks in two action plans. In an action plan dated 20 November 2023 it said it would arrange a visit to the neighbour. In an action plan dated 27 November 2023 it said it would contact the resident by 8 December 2023. However, there is no evidence of it doing either of these actions. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity for early resolution. The lack of action by the landlord would have likely caused frustration for the resident.
  3. The landlord closed the case on 20 December 2023 due to insufficient evidence. It informed the resident of the case closure by email. It had created the action plan on 27 November 2023 and did not contact the resident again until sending the case closure email. The lack of communication from the landlord would have likely caused frustration for the resident.
  4. The landlord opened a second ASB case in January 2024. The landlord again made a clear action plan. This time it did what it said it would do. The landlord:
    1. Contacted the neighbour and sent an advice letter.
    2. Signposted the resident for wellbeing support.
    3. Kept in contact with the resident.
    4. Reviewed noise app reports the resident sent in.
  5. The landlord closed the ASB case on 20 March 2024. It said it did not have enough evidence to take any action. The resident had sent in noise recordings and the landlord had reviewed them. The landlord said it could hear the neighbour talking and walking but this was not a tenancy breach. It was reasonable that the landlord closed the case at this time. It can only take tenancy action when it has evidence to do so and at this stage it did not.
  6. The resident made three further noise complaints in April, May and June 2024 but these did not meet the threshold for investigation so the landlord did not investigate. The landlord’s decision not to investigate is in line with its ASB policy and so it is reasonable that it did not investigate these complaints.
  7. The landlord opened a third ASB case in June 2024. An action plan was set out on 18 June 2024. The landlord said it would speak to other neighbours to see if they were experiencing any similar noise issues. However, there is no evidence to show that it did this. The landlord had committed to this action and it should have done as it said it would.
  8. The landlord has awarded the resident £100 in compensation through its complaint process for inconvenience and having to chase contact. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance when a landlord accepts there has been a service failure. It acknowledged that it did not have regard for contact arrangements with the resident. However, it did not recognise or remedy the failings this investigation has found. These are:
    1. It did not visit the neighbour as it said it would in the action plan dated 20 November 2023.
    2. It did not contact the resident on or before 8 December 2023 as it said it would in the action plan dated 27 November 2023.
    3. The landlord made no attempts to contact the resident for an update before closing the ASB case on 20 December 2023.
    4. The landlord did not contact other neighbours as it said it would in the action plan dated 18 June 2024.
  9. Overall, the landlord took steps to investigate the reports of ASB in line with its policy. However, it failed to complete all the actions it said it would do and this would likely have caused frustration for the resident. For this reason, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.  To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation. This is line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgment. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
  2. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2024. This was 2 days late according to its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay in the response and apologised for it. The delay was not significant and although the resident may have been frustrated, it is unlikely to have caused significant detriment.
  3. The resident requested that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 14 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 23 July 2024, this was 2 working days late according to its policy. It then responded to the complaint on 8 August 2024, this was 19 working days from the date the resident requested the escalation. Although the landlord was 2 days late in acknowledging the complaint, the delay did not affect the time it took for the landlord to provide its response to the resident. Therefore, there was no detriment to the resident.
  4. Overall, we are satisfied that the landlord handled the complaint in line with its obligations. There was a slight delay in responding at stage 1. However, we consider that this would not have impacted the overall outcome or caused any significant detriment to the resident. Therefore, we have found no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the likely impact to the resident caused by the failings in the handling of the ASB reports. This amount should be paid directly to the resident and must not be paid in to the rent account.
    2. Pay the resident the £50 compensation it awarded at stage 2, if it has not already done so.
    3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.