Clarion Housing Association Limited (202450956)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property and has medical conditions, which the landlord is aware of. She is unhappy with the landlord’s actions in relation to her reports of issues with a neighbour and her request for a transfer.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s request for a transfer.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
   2. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer
   3. service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of ASB

5. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable. There was limited action it could take as the neighbour was a freeholder, and there is no evidence that the resident reported any specific incidents to the landlord or the relevant authorities. Its compensation offer for communication failures was reasonable.

The resident’s request for a transfer

6. The landlord has acted in line with its policy in not agreeing a management transfer. It has offered the resident support in applying for aids and adaptations in her current property and provided reasonable guidance on her rehousing options.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s second complaint in line with its policy and failed to recognise this in its stage 2 response.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

8. The resident told the landlord in her complaint that the ASB had been ongoing since 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the residents reports from 2024 onwards.
9. This is because residents are generally expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

10. The resident reported ASB to the landlord in 2019 and 2020 and the landlord opened cases. At this time the landlord liaised with the Police, who were not taking any further action. The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2020 to let her know it had closed the case and would be unable to take any further action without evidence. It asked her to use the noise app to record noise if it occurred.
11. We have seen no further evidence of the resident reporting further incidents of ASB to the landlord before raising her complaint in September 2024. In its stage 2 response of 21 November 2024, it explained that the neighbour was a freeholder, so it could not take any direct action against them. It told her that she should report any issues to the Police and the local authority, and provided weblinks for reporting this, which was an appropriate response.
12. In its response the landlord apologised for not addressing her concerns about ASB in its stage 1 response. It offered £100 compensation, which was reasonable and proportionate. It also offered £100 compensation in relation to the letter it sent in November 2020, as the resident had said she had found it threatening. While we have not investigated the landlord’s actions in 2020, it was reasonable for it to apologise and offer compensation. The landlord’s compensation offer at this time was reasonable and proportionate.
13. In April 2025 the resident told the landlord her neighbour had opened her post which had been mistakenly delivered to them. The landlord responded and said the appropriate step would be raise this with Royal Mail, which the resident had confirmed she had already done.
14. The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 May and 6 June 2025 to discuss her second complaint. She said the neighbour’s son walked past her home when there was no need to do so, parked near her home unnecessarily, and there was a constant banging of doors. She told it that she had made no further reports to Police about ASB since 2020. We have also seen no evidence that she had raised any specific incidents to the landlord during that time.
15. In its stage 1 response of 10 June 2025, the landlord said again that it could not take any direct action against the neighbour. It recommended that she discussed matters with the Police, given how much time had passed since she last reported anything. This response was reasonable, given that the resident had not recently reported any specific incidents to either the landlord or the Police.
16. The landlord spoke with the resident on 12 June 2025, when she said she was reluctant to report incidents to the Police due to fear of repercussions. The landlord explained that no formal action could be taken if she did not report incidents, which was an appropriate response. The landlord agreed to provide a personal safety alarm and a video doorbell, which was a reasonable step to help her feel safer.
17. The landlord received the resident’s escalation request on 17 June 2025, in which she said she did not feel the landlord had shown compassion, understanding or consideration for her feelings. In its stage 2 response of 31 July 2025 the landlord reiterated its stage 1 position and confirmed it had sent out the safety equipment it had previously offered.
18. While we appreciate the resident does not feel the landlord took her concerns seriously, there was limited action it could take as the neighbour involved is not one of its residents. The resident also did not report any specific incidents at the time they happened for it to investigate live issues. The landlord has communicated clearly with the resident and explained who she should report further incidents to.

What we have not considered

19. The resident has requested a move to a different borough and is registered with the local authority to bid for properties. It is outside our remit to investigate complaints about the local authority’s housing scheme, its housing allocation, bidding, banding and the housing register. This is because these are processes administered by the local council and fall within the scope of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
20. We have only considered the landlord’s action in line with its own policies. If the resident is unhappy with the actions of the local authority, she should raise this with it directly and escalate this to the LGSCO if necessary.
21. The resident told the landlord that her current living situation has impacted her health condition. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further.

The resident’s request for a transfer

22. The resident’s initial complaint was about the outcome of her request for medical priority for a transfer. In the landlord’s initial stage 2 response of 21 November 2024, it confirmed that she had been awarded the highest medical banding (apart from emergency banding reserved for people experiencing life changing conditions awaiting discharge from hospital). It encouraged her to continue bidding for properties through the local authority’s system. The landlord does not have any control over this process and could not have taken any further action in this respect.
23. The landlord told the resident that she could consider a mutual exchange. It also said that it would review a management move if the resident was able to provide support from the Police that she was at risk of serious harm. This was in line with its management transfer policy and was a reasonable response.
24. When the resident raised her second complaint, she told the landlord her health had deteriorated and the property was no longer suitable for her needs. She said that surgery had been put on hold as her doctor felt she should not return to a stressful situation at home after her operation.
25. In its stage 1 response of 10 June 2025 the landlord referred to its previous stage 2 response. It said it had made a referral to its Resident Liaison Officer team, who had tried to contact her to discuss her current housing options. It said it would ask them to call her again and gave her the team’s number, which was a reasonable action.
26. In its stage 2 response of 31 July 2025 the landlord again confirmed that the local authority had awarded her the highest priority possible for a move and said she should continue to bid for properties. It explained that she did not meet the management transfer criteria. This response was fair and in line with its management transfer policy. It said it would be in contact to discuss possible aids and adaptations for the property while she was awaiting availability of a suitable property. This was a reasonable offer, but the resident later confirmed she did not want any aids and adaptations.
27. We appreciate that the resident’s current property does not meet her needs, and that this is distressing for her. However, the landlord has acted in line with its policies. It has discussed the possibility of a mutual exchange and signposted her correctly to the local authority to bid on suitable properties. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s actions.

28. As can be seen above:
    1. the landlord responded to the first complaint at stage 1 after 12 working days (23 August to 10 September 2024) – slightly outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 after 41 working days (25 September to 21 November 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
    3. the landlord responded to the second complaint after 9 working days (28 May to 10 June 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    4. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 12 working days after it received her letter (17 June to 3 July 2025) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    5. the landlord sent its stage 2 response 20 days after its acknowledgment (3 July to 31 July 2025) – in line with its policy timescale, despite having said it needed more time
29. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided us with copies of the resident’s original complaint from 2024, and its first stage 1 response. It is not clear whether this was an oversight, or a failure in its knowledge and information management. However, its stage 2 response provides a clear timeline of complaint events, and it has offered proportionate compensation for its delayed response.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request of the second complaint within a reasonable timeframe. It has provided a copy of her letter of escalation which it stamped showing it received this on 17 June 2025. However, its stage 2 response said escalation was requested via email on 20 June 2025, which we have not seen. Its stage 2 did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay.
31. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident additional £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in escalated her second complaint to stage 2. We have made this award with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £125.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord kept clear records of its ASB investigation, dating back to the resident’s first report in 2019, allowing for a clear and accurate complaint investigation. It has not provided full records relating to her complaints. This lack of records could mean there are gaps in its investigation process when reviewing complaints. Going forward it should ensure it keeps these records in order to enable it to improve services for residents.

Communication

33. It is not clear from the landlord’s records why it raised a new complaint in May 2025 about issues it had already issued a final response for in November 2024. In this circumstance it would be appropriate for it to refer a resident back to us, rather than issuing further responses to the same complaint. This would help to avoid any unnecessary delays for the resident.