Clarion Housing Association Limited (202311046)

Decision
Case ID	202311046
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 November 2025

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 1 March 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the second floor. The landlord has a vulnerability marker for the resident but there are no details.
2. On 3 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that her neighbour was dumping rubbish in the communal bins. During November she contacted it again about the issue. She added that she was concerned about another neighbour’s use of the communal gardens. In January 2024 she reported verbal abuse against her by a neighbour.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

5. We found shortcomings in the landlord’s response including failure to carry out a risk assessment. In isolation the detriment caused by the failures was relatively low. However, we have considered the cumulative impact when making our determination.

Complaint handling.

6. The landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the complaint for which it apologised.
7. This report has identified additional complaint handling failures. However, we consider that the amount of compensation offered has put them right.

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 15 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 15 December 2025

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £150 as offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 November 2023	The resident wrote to us to say she’d tried to raise a complaint with the landlord but it had not responded.
19 February 2024	We wrote to the landlord to ask that it provide its complaint response by 12 March.
1 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response as follows: There was no record of the letters from the resident reporting ASB. The resident raised ASB issues when attending its surgeries last year. Either there was no evidence to support the allegations or the issues were not ASB. The neighbour’s tenant was allowed to use communal bins. There was no evidence of fly tipping. There was no failure of service. It had arranged to meet with the resident on 12 March to discuss her concerns.
8 March 2024	The resident’s support worker emailed both us and the landlord to say that she wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident also phoned the landlord to say she was unhappy with its response.
26 March 2024	The resident called us to say she’d asked the landlord to escalate her complaint but had not received a response. We contacted her on 3 June 2024 to clarify the situation.
6 August 2024	We wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide its stage 2 complaint response by 13 August 2024. It requested an extension and on 7 August it wrote to the resident to confirm it would respond by 3 September 2024.
3 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response, the main points were: There was no evidence of a fence in the communal area or of there being issues with barbeques. It had investigated the resident’s complaint about rubbish being dumped. It could not take action due to lack of evidence. It set out the details of its meeting with the resident on 12 March 2024. It advised the resident to make a written complaint about being unhappy her ASB case was closed in January. It reviewed its records and found a letter dated 14 September 2023 reporting dumping of rubbish.  It did not consider this to be ASB so it raised a general enquiry on 18 September. It had not received any further communication by post from the resident regarding ASB issues. It acknowledged that the resident contacted it on 08 March to say she did not agree with its response. It failed to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. It confirmed that £327.62 was awarded at stage 1 with an additional offer of £150.00 made at stage 2.
5 September 2024	During a call to us the resident said the landlord’s response contained false allegations. She said she avoided staying in the property due to the ASB issues.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

8. On 3 July 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to report that a private resident (neighbour A) was filling up communal bins with their rubbish. When she wrote again on 8 November 2023 she also reported concerns about another neighbour’s (neighbour B) use of the communal gardens.
9. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided a response. However, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 March 2024 said there was no evidence it received the letters. It concluded they must’ve got lost in the post. Without proof of delivery there’s no evidence to say otherwise. Therefore there’s no evidence of failure of service.
10. On 18 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report an incident of verbal abuse against her by a neighbour (neighbour C). She said she’d reported the matter to the police.
11. The landlord appropriately opened an ASB case. An entry dated 24 January 2024 said neighbour C would be contacted once it had liaised with the police. It submitted a police disclosure request form that day. This was in line with its ASB policy to work with the police where there was potential criminal activity.
12. Also on 24 January the landlord wrote to the resident with an action plan. This included that it would consider the resident’s suggestions for CCTV and additional lighting. The use of an action plan to manage the resident’s expectations was appropriate. However, there’s no evidence it considered the CCTV and lighting which was inappropriate.
13. On 29 January 2024 the police disclosed that neighbour C had provided his account of the incident and was given words of advice. On the same day the landlord wrote to neighbour C with an appointment to discuss the incident. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
14. During a call with the landlord on 23 February 2024 the resident mentioned that she had high blood pressure and had previously had a heart attack. The landlord noted that she was flagged as vulnerable on its system.
15. The government’s guidance ‘putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’ says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm.
16. On 24 February 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to signpost her to support services. While this was positive there’s no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment to ensure this was an appropriate response. This was particularly relevant given the nature of the complaint and the resident’s vulnerabilities.
17. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 1 March 2024 provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about resident B having barbeques and the general use of communal spaces.
18. It confirmed that neighbour A was permitted to use the communal bins and there was no evidence of fly tipping. It failed to set out the steps it took to investigate the resident’s report. Therefore it failed to reassure her that it took her complaint seriously by investigating if its response was reasonable.
19. A file note of the landlord’s telephone call with the resident on 1 March 2024 confirmed she was dissatisfied with its response about dumping rubbish. The landlord explained its position including that there was no evidence. On 5 March the landlord wrote to the resident to sign post her to services because she’d mentioned she might benefit from wellbeing support. Again, there was no evidence that it satisfied itself this was an appropriate response based on a risk assessment.
20. The landlord did not receive a response from neighbour C so it issued him with a written warning on 5 March 2024. It also wrote to the resident to advise it had closed the case and gave its reasons. The landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 3 September 2024 set out its discussion with the resident during the meeting on 12 March 2024. While this was positive it was 6 months after the event. It’s unclear why it did not communicate the outcomes to the resident before this date. Furthermore we’ve not seen evidence of the discussion, such as a file note, made at the time which is a record keeping failure.
22. It said it had located a letter dated 14 September 2023 about dumping of rubbish which had been dealt with as a general enquiry rather than a report of ASB. It’s ASB policy does not provide a definitive list of what is and what is not ASB. However, given that fly tipping is a potential criminal offence it’s decision making is unclear.
23. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
25. On 13 July 2023 the resident contacted us to say she’d submitted a written complaint to the landlord in March 2023. We asked her to provide a copy of the letter but there’s no evidence she did. She contacted us again on 28 November 2023 to say she’d not received a complaint response.
26. We wrote to the landlord on 19 February 2024 to ask it to provide a response by 12 March. On 1 March it issued its response which was within time.
27. During a call with the landlord on 8 March 2024 the resident said she was unhappy with its response. Her support worker also emailed the landlord on the same day to confirm she wished to escalate her complaint.
28. Following our communication with the resident we wrote to the landlord on 6 August 2024 to ask it to provide a response by 13 August 2024. The landlord replied to say it had no evidence of an escalation request. It requested the full 20 working days to respond. On 7 August the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that as per its agreement with her the deadline was extended to 3 September 2024.
29. It was positive that its response was within the agreed timescale. However, as acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response the resident asked to escalate her complaint. Therefore its response was significantly delayed for which it apologised.
30. The landlord’s response said that during the meeting on 12 March 2024 the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with its handling of the incident of verbal abuse. It said it had advised her that if she was unhappy about the case being closed she should write a letter. The case worker’s manager would then investigate the matter.
31. Its response was inappropriate because it was not in line with its complaints policy which says complaints can be raised to a member of staff. The landlord should therefore have raised a complaint of the resident’s behalf following the meeting. That it did not do so was a failure of service.
32. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said it offered compensation at stage 1 which was incorrect. This was because it did not uphold the complaint and did not offer any compensation.
33. In an email to us dated 10 November 2025 the landlord confirmed that it offered compensation at stage 1. However, the complaint reference number it provided is not the same as the one for this complaint. This is a record keeping failure and a failure to adhere to the requirements of the Code. This is because it did not clearly and in plain language set out the correct remedy offered to put things right.
34. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for complaint handling failures is line with its compensation policy. It’s also in line with our Remedies Guidance where failures have had an adverse effect on the resident.
35. Therefore, we consider that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Learning

36. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s complaints process did not identify all the failures outlined in this report including risk assessments. Therefore it missed an opportunity to learn from the complaint. However, following our determination of case reference 202208746 it wrote to us on 26 February 2024 to say it had introduced standardised risk assessments for all its ASB cases. Therefore it has not been necessary to make a further order in this case.