We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202346798)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346798

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 October 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a three-bedroom house.
  2. The resident has two sons, both of whom have vulnerabilities.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 January 2023 to report ASB from her neighbour. She reported noise disturbance stemming from a party the neighbour was having. The landlord opened a new ASB case on the same date. The resident continued to report instances of ASB to the landlord every few weeks from January 2023 through to September 2023. These included noise nuisance complaints, the neighbour throwing water over the fence into his property, as well as intimidation from the neighbours. Throughout this period, environmental health, the police, and victim support were all involved in the case. The landlord offered the resident a move away from the property in June 2023 but he rejected this offer.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 September 2023 to raise a complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB saying he felt that it had refused to act and made excuses for the neighbour’s ASB. He was also unhappy that the landlord had failed to respond to him when sending in evidence. Finally, he said he felt the landlord used ethnic minority staff in order to allow it to discriminate towards its ethnic minority tenants.
  5. The landlord responded on 18 October 2023 providing its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld his complaint and awarded £250 compensation. This consisted of £50 for the delay in providing its stage 1 response and £200 for failing to follow its process when dealing with the ASB, including failing to respond to ASB reports. The landlord said it had also started contacting neighbours and working with other organisations in order to try and obtain a resolution to the ongoing ASB.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 7 November 2023. He felt the landlord was still failing to tackle the ASB and that it had ignored some of the evidence he had provided.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It again upheld his complaint increasing its compensation offer to £450. In addition to the £250 offered in its stage 1 response, it awarded £100 for communication failures, £50 for failing to send an e-mail to victim support following a multi-agency meeting and £50 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. It also said that an independent reviewer had investigated the case which identified several failures in its handling of the ASB case. It said that to rectify this, it would now interview neighbours, arrange an interview with the alleged perpetrator of ASB, issue a warning letter to the alleged perpetrator, speak with the police about any outstanding incidents and contact the local authority about arranging a move. 
  9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 14 March 2024, asking us to consider his complaint. He said he felt the landlord’s compensation for the ASB was not sufficient and that it had failed to properly communicate with him about the case. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB as he felt it gave the perpetrator several warnings but these failed to resolve the issue. He advised he wanted a permanent solution to the ASB and additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience the ASB had caused him and his family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which ‘were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising’. This means that the resident’s reports of ASB made over a year before he raised his complaint will not form part of this investigation. The Ombudsman has however viewed these as part of the wider context of the resident’s complaint.
  2. When considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will ‘consider a range of interventions (e.g. ABC’s, tenancy support, warning letters – this list is not exhaustive) to deter or prevent ASB’. It goes on to say that where appropriate it will ‘take legal action by way of injunctions and/or possession proceedings – using mandatory grounds where applicable’. It states that it will only move to these steps ‘where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so, and the evidence is sufficient and robust enough for a successful possession action’.
  2. Between January 2023 and January 2024 (the period this investigation covers), the resident reported instances of ASB on an almost weekly basis. The issues raised mostly related to noise nuisance caused by his neighbour, as well as intimidation and threats made by the neighbour.
  3. As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord arranged for the ongoing ASB case to be reviewed by ‘ASB Action’ in order to identify what it could have done better when handling the resident’s reports. ASB Action identified several areas where the landlord could have investigated more thoroughly.
  4. It established that the landlord should have made further investigations into the January 2023 disturbance, that it failed to investigate by contacting other neighbouring properties, that it failed to substantively investigate the reports of cannabis use, and that it failed when communicating with the resident.
  5. The landlord listed all of these in its stage 2 complaint response and outlined how it intended to act upon these recommendations. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord followed these recommendations. It interviewed the resident’s neighbour about the January 2023 incident, as well as questioning them about cannabis use in the property. Following this interview, it sent a formal warning to the neighbour about both of these matters. This showed the neighbour the enforcement actions the landlord could take if they further breached the terms of their tenancy.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint that it failed to send a warning letter to the neighbour when it should have done so at an earlier date. It delayed doing so until January 2024. It appears the landlord delayed doing this until it had received ASB Action’s review of how it handled the case. The landlord’s delay in doing this represented a failure in service from it. The landlord was fair to recognise its failure and to offer compensation for the delay. The landlord included this failure within its £200 offer for policy and communication failures.
  7. It was fair from the landlord to seek external advice on how to manage the case and to take the necessary actions in order to fulfil recommendations that followed this review. This represented good learning from the landlord and a desire to ensure it was managing the case as effectively as possible.
  8. The landlord recognised that its communication with the resident had been poor. It highlighted several instances where the resident had reported ASB, and it had failed to acknowledge or respond to this contact. These were from 31 January 2023 until 7 June 2023, 15 June 2023 until 6 July 2023 and 4 August 2023 until 4 October 2023. The Ombudsman has similarly found long periods where the landlord failed to acknowledge, and respond to, the resident’s ASB reports.
  9. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation specifically for communication failures. It also included communication failings within a larger £200 offer for it not following its ASB and communication policies. These were reasonable offers of redress considering the amount of distress and inconvenience these failings caused to the resident.
  10. The landlord has been in contact with various other agencies throughout the course of the ASB. It involved environmental health who installed a DAT machine in the property. This found no statutory nuisances and environmental health were therefore unable to take any further action against the resident’s neighbour. The resident has also made reports to the police. The police have also not brought any charges against the neighbour or taken any further action. The landlord was in contact with both of these agencies about the ASB case throughout 2023 – this was reasonable from the landlord and represented good practice.
  11. The landlord did recognise that it had failed to respond to an e-mail from Victim Support to update them on the progression of the ASB case following a multi-agency meeting. For this failing, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation. The landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable given the distress and inconvenience such a failing would have caused to the resident.
  12. Throughout the history of the ASB case, there were instances where the resident submitted evidence of ASB that the landlord was unable to substantiate in order to take further action. This happened in particular to a video of someone swearing at the resident, and a video of the neighbour spraying water over the resident’s fence causing damage. In both instances, the landlord felt that it was unable to substantiate the claims of ASB. It sought multiple opinions on this advice and also appears to have discussed the incidents with the police. The landlord’s actions when investigating these incidents appears to have been fair and it appropriately outlined to the resident why it was not able to use these as the basis for taking further action against the neighbour.
  13. The landlord offered both parties mediation and has also pro-actively sought to help the resident arrange a move away from the property. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord has also engaged with the neighbour in an effort to be resolution focused. This again represented a reasonable course of action for the landlord to follow to try and resolve the ongoing situation.
  14. The landlord could have done more to manage expectations for the resident. For example, the resident has expressed a desire for the landlord to escalate its actions, potentially moving towards legal proceedings. It may be the case that the landlord concludes that it does not have sufficient evidence to be able to progress to these stages of its ASB procedure. However, the landlord should communicate this clearly and explain to the resident exactly why it may or may not be able to take such steps. Following this decision, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord write a follow-up to the resident explaining what steps it is able to take with the current level of evidence it holds.
  15. Overall, the landlord’s apologies and award of £350 compensation for its failures in handling the ASB represented a reasonable offer of redress. The landlord recognised that there were communications failings and delays in progressing its investigations. It put this right by visiting the alleged perpetrator, issuing a warning, liaising with the police and interviewing other neighbours about the ongoing issues. The offer of £350 compensation combined with these actions it undertook meant that the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord offered sufficient redress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1, it says that it will acknowledge and log any complaints within 10 working days of receiving them. At stage 2, it says it will acknowledge and log complaints within 10 working days and provide its complaint response within 20 working days of this. These timescales are in line with the Ombudsman’s own Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The landlord provided its responses late at both stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process. It took 21 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response, and 39 working days to provide its response at stage 2. This was a clear failure in service to keep to the timescales set out in its policies.
  3. However, the landlord recognised its own failings in its complaint responses. It provided £50 compensation for the stage 1 delay, and £50 for the stage 2 delay. This figure is in the range that the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends for failings of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses were fair and laid out exactly what actions the landlord would be taking. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response clearly explained the actions it would take in response to the findings of the ASB Action case review and its review of the complaint. The landlord also apologised for its failings which was good practice.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was fair. It failed to provide the resident with responses within the timescales set out in its policy, but it recognised these failings and made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings in its handling of reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for the failings in its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £450 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. The determinations of reasonable redress are based upon this amount being paid to the resident.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident to provide him with a full update about the ASB case and to outline what steps it can take moving forward. It should detail the actions available to it, and what evidence it would require to progress these actions.