Clarion Housing Association Limited (202402709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402709

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 July 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
   3. The contact restrictions it applied to the resident.
   4. The resident’s subject access requests (SAR).
   5. The associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat and the landlord is a housing association.
3. The resident has made several complaints to the landlord. These have been broadly summarised below.

Complaint 1

4. In April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about it not taking action to remove her neighbour’s doorbell camera and ASB. We have referred to the neighbour as the alleged perpetrator (AP) within this report.
5. The landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2023. This Service later investigated and determined the complaint on 26 February 2025.

Complaint 2

6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 3 November 2023 following a complaint from the resident about the lack of updates following her reports of ASB. It advised it closed its “legal action” and “tenancy breach” case against the AP after photos demonstrated the camera in question pointed towards a communal hallway. It confirmed an ASB case was best suited to deal with the issue. It offered £50 compensation to apologise for the lack of updates and £50 for the complaint handling delay.
7. The resident escalated her complaint and asked the landlord to investigate the conduct of a staff member. On 9 January 2024, she added that a staff member misnamed her, made false statements about the situation, and made decisions without evidence.
8. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 21 February 2024. It recognised it failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It confirmed a home visit took place with the AP in January 2024 and they had removed their camera. It said it wrote to her and asked her to do the same. It offered £100 compensation for the delay responding at stage 2 and £150 for the shortcomings in its communication.

Complaint 3

9. On 26 February 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said a manager tried to restrict her access to the tenancy specialist team.
10. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 March 2024. It set out that the manager was involved in handling a concern about the resident’s communication with a member of staff under its unacceptable behaviour policy. It stated they followed its policy by applying a communication restriction. It also summarised key events in the resident’s ASB case since 2021 and recognised it failed to agree an action plan with her. Furthermore, it identified shortcomings in its communication. It offered the resident £300 compensation.
11. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2024. She did not believe the landlord fully considered her complaint and highlighted some inaccuracies.
12. On 19 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response.It stated this was in addition to itsresponse dated 19 July 2023. It described the resident’s reasons for escalating her complaint and responded to them. It agreed sheappealed the contact restrictions in January 2024, which it had overlooked. It said it had not received screenshots from her doorbell camera footage and notedit inaccurately stated that it had at stage 1. It awarded her £300 compensation for the failure to process her appeal and £50 for incorrect information.

Complaint 4

13. On 26 April 2024, the landlord responded to the resident’s appeal of its decision to apply contact restrictions. It deemed her contact to the tenancy specialist team to be of a belittling and offensive nature and despite a warning, felt her behaviour did not change. As such, it restricted her contact with the team to once a week. It did not uphold her appeal and provided referral rights to this Service.

Complaint 5

14. On 11 May 2024, the resident made a complaint about the conduct of a manager, including their request for her to remove her doorbell camera. She felt their behaviour was oppressive, controlling, and coercive. She said they lied to the police and attempted to influence their decision-making.
15. The landlord responded on 22 May 2024, setting out that it had previously considered the actions of the manager and issued its final response on 19 April 2024. As such, it would not consider this again and provided referral rights to this Service.

Complaint 6

16. The resident refuted that complaint 5 was a duplicate and told the landlord it specifically related to her view that the manager interfered and attempted to influence a police investigation.
17. A stage 1 response was issued by the landlord on 18 July 2024. It addressed the resident’s concerns about the staff member and did not find any failings. It awarded £50 compensation for the complaint handling delay.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2024 stating it issued a response on 21 August 2024, and she had now exhausted its complaints procedure. We have not seen a copy of this. It provided referral rights to this Service.

Complaint 7

19. On 1 July 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about the contact restrictions it had implemented and the conduct of its contact centre staff. We have not received evidence of its response.
20. It addressed complaints about its contact centre staff throughout other complaint responses which are being investigated separately by this Service.

Complaint 8

21. In October 2024, the resident complained that she did not receive fortnightly calls from her neighbourhood officer as promised. She asked the landlord to remove the contact restriction. She also made further comments about the manager that was previously the subject of a complaint.
22. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 November 2024. It explained the staff member who was meant to call her fortnightly had been on long-term sick leave. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for this and £50 for the delay responding to the complaint. It said it would not address her complaint about the manager as it had already considered this.
23. On 23 January 2025, it issued its stage 2 complaint response. It reiterated its position as per its stage 1 letter. It awarded an additional £50 compensation for the delay responding to the complaint at stage 2, resulting in a total compensation offer of £150.
24. In total, the landlord offered the resident £1200 compensation for the failings it identified. She was dissatisfied with its complaint responses in addition to its handling of her subject access requests. She referred the case to this Service.

Assessment and findings

25. The resident has written to this Service at length about her complaints. It is not our role to provide answers to every argument raised. As a publicly funded body, we must use our limited resources in the most effective and efficient way.
26. The Scheme states we will decide how to consider and investigate complaints, taking account of the evidence of failure presented. Both parties should read this report fairly and it should not be subject to a hypercritical analysis nor construed as if it were a statute or a contract.

Jurisdiction

27. Our jurisdiction is what we can and cannot consider. The Scheme governs this. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we may not investigate.
28. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the following aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s SARs.
29. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her SARs would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to consider.

Scope of investigation

30. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
31. On 26 February 2025, we issued determination 202317755. This considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, harassment, and the associated complaint up to 19 July 2023. She has complained about some of the same issues within her correspondence on this case and submitted some of the same information. We may not investigate matters which we have already decided upon. Any reference to events previously considered is to provide context only.
32. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider its response as a whole. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of a staff member give rise to a failure in service, we make our determination against the landlord rather than the individual. We cannot order it to take disciplinary action against individual staff members. We also do not have the authority to instruct it to ensure that specific members of staff do not have any contact or involvement with the resident or their case going forward. This is in accordance with our Scheme which states we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

ASB

33. Not every incident reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. It is also not the purpose of this report to investigate the incidents or to assess the credibility of the resident’s reports. Our role is to consider its response to the reports it received and decide whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances, in accordance with its policies and any relevant legislation.
34. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as per the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. This is conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person, is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises or is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
35. In dealing with ASB, the policy explains it will use a range of resolution tools. It will also work with other organisations and agencies, such as the police and local authorities. Where ASB is the result of criminal activity it expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police, and it expects the police and other statutory agencies to act where they have sufficient evidence to do so.
36. The landlord’s closed-circuit television (CCTV) policy states that it reserves the right to request that video doorbells are re-positioned or removed, where it receives complaints about inappropriate use that amount to harassment or ASB. If this request is not complied with, it may apply to the courts for an injunction or take other action.
37. Records show that between July 2023 and November 2023, the resident reported several issues to the landlord concerning the AP. This included verbal abuse, recording her without her consent and following her. It evidenced that it communicated with the police on multiple occasions about the allegations. The police confirmed there was an open investigation into stalking and harassment.
38. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed and shared with the complainant. In this case, the landlord recognised that it did notdo this and offered compensation. This has been addressed further below.
39. We also note the landlord has not evidenced a risk assessment, which was another failing considering the nature of the resident’s reports. It has since informed this Service that during this period, it did not have the facility to do this. It has explained that it is currently acting upon our recommendations made in other determinations to implement this. We have asked it to provide an update.
40. On 21 November 2023, the landlord asked the resident if it could contact the AP to discuss her allegations. The resident did not provide her consent. Without consent to discuss the matter, and while the police were progressing their case and sending it to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), it was reasonable for the landlord to close its file. We note it asked the police to update it once it had concluded its investigation, signposted the resident to an external support service, and offered a door brace, door alarm and personal alarm. While she was dissatisfied with these suggestions, we find its actions were fair, proportionate, and in line with its policy.
41. On 26 November 2023, the resident provided consent for the landlord to discuss her reports with the AP. The landlord confirmed a meeting took place with the AP on 20 December 2023 and said they agreed to remove or reposition their camera. During a home visit on 2 January 2024, it reported the AP had removed the camera completely. We recognise she was concerned their mounting bracket remained. In response, it acted pragmatically by reattending the property to check whether the camera was back in situ. It also asked the resident to remove her camera. The resident objected to this and said the police told her to install a camera. However, she has not provided evidence of this. She also said that as a leaseholder, she does not need permission for a camera. After considering the evidence available, we find the landlord acted fairly and in line with its CCTV policy by asking both parties to remove their cameras in view of the allegations and counter allegations received.
42. Throughout January 2024, the resident reported several instances of ‘intrusive staring’ by the AP and allegations of threatening comments made to her. On 22 February 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to close her ASB case, stating she would focus on the police investigation instead. It replied to her the following day confirming it would close the case. She informed this Service that she closed the case as she lost faith in the landlord and did not want its handling of the matter to impact the police investigation. Within her email dated 22 February 2024, she said the police asked her to close the ASB report. She has not provided evidence of this to the landlord or us. While we appreciate her strength of feeling here, it was her decision to close her ASB case, and we cannot reasonably fault the landlord for adhering to her instructions.
43. Despite closing the case, records show the resident reported further incidents with the AP to the landlord in March 2024. Following this, it evidenced that it contacted the police to request a meeting and ask for an update on the progress of the CPS investigation. On 2 April 2024, the resident complained that it was still working on her case even though she had asked to close it. In view of the nature of her reports of further issues from the AP, we are minded that it was reasonable for it to contact the police to establish the updated position.
44. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation to the resident regarding its handling of her reports of ASB across several complaint responses. This comprises:
    1. 3 November 2023 – failure to inform her about the closed tenancy breach case and her chasing for a response – £50.
    2. 21 February 2024 – lack of communication concerning her reports of ASB – £150.
    3. 15 March 2024 – shortcomings in its communication and failure to complete an ASB action plan – £300.
    4. 19 April 2024 – inaccurate information at stage 1 – £50.
45. In summary, the landlord identified several shortcomings in its communication with the resident during its ASB investigations and recognised its failure to complete an action plan. The evidence provided to this Service demonstrates on many occasions it did not respond to her questions, requests for updates, or return her calls within a reasonable timeframe. There are also instances of her requests being ignored or overlooked. It is a concern that poor communication continued across various complaints concerning ASB, indicating it did not learn lessons from previous cases.This impacted the landlord/leaseholder relationship.
46. The landlord offered a total of £550 compensation. Our remedies guidance states that compensation awards between £100 and £600 may be reasonable when there are failures that adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer amounts between £250 to £700 where it has found considerable service failure in its handling of a matter. This includes situations where a resident has had to make repeated contacts to resolve an issue or where it has not followed its published policies or procedures. Its offer was in line with both its own policy and our guidance. Therefore, we consider that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for the shortcomings identified in its handling of her reports of ASB.

Staff conduct

47. We considered whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, we expect a landlord to investigate and make an informed decision based on its findings.
48. The landlord’s professional conduct policy states it has built its culture and working environment on trust and professionalism. It embodies these in its values and code of conduct which it expects all staff to meet. It has not provided us with a copy of its code of conduct.
49. Within the resident’s correspondence, she raised several issues including allegations of staff:
    1. Misnaming her.
    2. Making false statements and not reviewing evidence.
    3. Insensitivity to her circumstances.
    4. Not adhering to fortnightly calls.
    5. Contacting the police to manipulate an investigation.
    6. Not accepting her offer to view her doorbell footage.
    7. Comments on 3 January 2024.
50. On 14 December 2023, a staff member used the incorrect title for the resident – “Miss” instead of “Ms”. Despite her flagging this to the landlord several times, records show on occasion, staff continued to use the incorrect title, both with her and internally. She also provided evidence that it referenced her with an incorrect surname. We appreciate the upset and frustration caused. This was a shortcoming in the landlord’s customer service which it did not address properly through its complaints process. We have ordered an apology for this.
51. The resident alleged that members of staff had made false statements, did not review evidence and demonstrated insensitivity to her circumstances. We have reviewed her comments and submissions regarding this. Both parties are aware of her position, so we have not repeated this within our report. We find her comments are a narration of her interpretation of events and are subjective. While we recognise her strength of feeling on the matter and empathise with her difficult circumstances, we make our decisions based on the evidence available. We have seen no evidence to substantiate all the allegations made about the landlord’s staff.
52. On 30 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that she had not received the fortnightly calls it had promised. It investigated this within its stage 1 response of 28 November 2024 and identified that her neighbourhood response officer had been on long-term sick leave since the start of October 2024. It apologised and said it had requested for another staff member to provide updates. However, this would be dependent on availability. We find it apologised, provided a reason for the oversight, and managed her expectations going forward.
53. Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. In this case, it identified that if staff have extended periods of leave, it would try to reallocate their essential workload to avoid instances of this happening again. It offered the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused. This was in line with our remedies guidance.
54. The resident made several allegations that the landlord manipulated the police investigation and discredited her as a victim. We have reviewed copies of correspondence between the landlord and the police and identified no evidence to support this. Further, we have seen nothing to indicate that the police were concerned about its handling of the issues or raised any concerns with it about its professional conduct.
55. The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response dated 23 January 2025. Within this, it addressed the resident’s concern about a staff member not accepting her offer to view her camera footage. In addition, it referenced her allegations of comments made by a staff member on 3 January 2024. The housing lead stated they discussed matters with the staff member involved and apologised if anything said at the time upset the resident.
56. We note the interactions referenced were verbal and there is no evidence to prove what happened at this time. Additionally, the stage 2 response was issued a year after one of the incidents in question and recollections of events are likely to fade over time. However, we are satisfied the landlord made reasonable enquiries and identified a learning point in that it may have been helpful to review the resident’s camera when she gave it an opportunity to.
57. While we do not dispute the resident’s experience, overall, we have not seen evidence which demonstrates that staff behaved inappropriately or in a manner that was deliberately unhelpful. In our opinion, the landlord took her concerns seriously and sought to investigate the issues brought to it. Where it recognised failings, it apologised and offered redress.
58. Based on the evidence available, the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct were generally proportionate. However, in view of its failure to respond to her complaint of misnaming, we have made a service failure finding as opposed to reasonable redress.

Contact restrictions

59. On 21 December 2023, the landlord emailed the resident about comments she had made within recent emails. It said these were of an offensive and belittling nature, for instance, referring to a staff member as, “gullible,” “lazy,” and “incompetent.” We find it was reasonable for the landlord to address this as unacceptable behaviour and outline further actions it could take if it continued, such as restricting communication or seeking an injunction.
60. Records show that the resident continued to send emails to the landlord containing comments it felt were offensive during early January 2024. As such, a staff member completed a referral form to restrict communication with the resident. The form cites excessive and abusive contact. A manager approved the request. It notified the resident on 11 January 2024 that she may email the tenancy specialist team once per week. It provided a telephone number for her to use in an emergency and said it would review the restriction after 12 months. It provided details of how she could appeal the restriction if she disagreed.
61. The resident appealed against the decision in January 2024, stating the comments she had made following the warning were sent to the customer solutions team and not the tenancy specialist team. The landlord did not address her appeal within a reasonable timeframe, and it remained outstanding several months after she had made it. It apologised for its administration error within its stage 2 complaint response dated 19 April 2024. It also compensated her £300 for its delayed response. We find this to be fair and in accordance with our remedies guidance when considering the impact to her. It said its head of housing would respond to her appeal by 26 April 2024, which it did.
62. Within the appeal response, the landlord set out its reasons for applying the contact restriction. It clarified that it did not deem 12 emails over 39 days to be excessive. However, it had grave concerns about her use of language and despite issuing a warning on 21 December 2023, her behaviour continued in January 2024. As such, it felt it warranted a contact restriction, in line with its policy.
63. The landlord has not provided a copy of its policy for this period, so we have been unable to assess the specific policy wording. However, it is not unusual or unreasonable for a landlord to apply restrictions in these circumstances.
64. Within the appeal, the landlord stated that it would not consider a complaint about the same issue and provided referral rights to this Service. Its complaints policy says it will not consider a complaint when a resident disagrees with a decision it has made where there is another procedure to appeal the decision.
65. Our Code states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, an explanation must be provided to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process and the right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. In this case, we find it assessed the matter twice – once in the manager’s approval to apply the restriction and the appeal. As it had already considered the matter on 2 occasions, its decision to provide referral rights to us was fair and pragmatic, as opposed to completing 2 further reviews through its internal complaint procedure.
66. Moreover, the landlord recognised the delay responding to her appeal within a final complaint response dated 19 April 2024, awarded compensation and again, provided referral rights to this Service. Therefore, we are minded the resident had fair opportunity to escalate the matter to the Ombudsman and the landlord had followed its complaints policy.
67. A learning point would be for the landlord to give a clear explanation to a resident should it decide not to consider a matter through its complaints process, citing the relevant section of its policy if applicable. While it evidenced it did this regarding some of her concerns, we feel it could have been clearer here. However, as referral rights were provided, there was no detriment.
68. The resident continued to liaise with the landlord concerning her appeal in May 2024. She explained it used her comments from an email dated 20 December 2023 to restrict her access and this was prior to the warning issued the following day. She felt she was not given fair opportunity to modify her behaviour. Furthermore, she said it failed to address her allegation that a manager of the ASB team interfered with her email to the customer solutions team to restrict her access. The landlord concluded on 12 May 2024 that abusive contact was the reason for the restriction.
69. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord about the contact restrictions on 1 July 2024. It has not evidenced that it reiterated its position as per its appeal response. This was a shortcoming. However, it is clear it had already provided referral rights to us to signify the end of its consideration of the matter.
70. In September 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to apply additional contact restrictions. It set out that between 1 May to 5 September 2024, she had sent 72 emails, made 84 phone calls, and used the live chat service 4 times. It no longer permitted her to communicate with its contact centre by any means except for emergencies. It provided an emergency telephone number and said a staff member would contact her once a fortnight to raise any queries or repair requests she may have. It provided details of how to appeal the decision, which she subsequently did.
71. Within the resident’s appeal, she set out the number of contacts she had made to the landlord and provided context. For instance, she highlighted that many of the emails it had referenced were replies to its previous communication, or singular emails shared with various departments. She also felt it had misrepresented the number of calls and described what happened when she telephoned its contact centre.
72. The landlord responded to her appeal on 16 October 2024. It acknowledged that its previous correspondence of 11 January 2024 did not make it explicit that it considered the volumes of her communication to be high. As such, it stated it had not given her a specific warning about excessive communication or an opportunity to modify her behaviour. It clarified that it deemed more than 1 contact a week to be too much (excluding emergencies) and reminded her to not include offensive content. It explained it may reapply the restriction in the future.
73. The Ombudsman understands that landlords have finite resources and that receiving and replying to a high volume of communications can limit the effectiveness of its service to all residents. In this case, we agree the landlord failed to apply its policy correctly in that it did not give the resident a fair and defined opportunity to reduce the frequency of her contact before applying additional restrictions in September 2024.
74. Furthermore, within the landlord’s appeal response, it would have been appropriate for it to clarify whether the restriction still applied to its tenancy specialist team, as previously applied. Its lack of clarity here contributed to the resident’s confusion and frustration. Additionally, it failed to signify if she had the option of making a formal complaint about its handling of the matter. If not, it would have been appropriate to provide referral rights to our Service within the appeal response, as it did so previously.
75. In view of the shortcomings identified and the impact on the resident, we have found a failure in the landlord’s service provision. The landlord has already made a considerable financial offer of £300. In view of this, the required resolution at this stage is not more financial redress. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation. We deem an apology and clarification regarding the restrictions to be an appropriate remedy.

Complaint handling

76. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a 10 further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
77. Within its complaint responses, the landlord recognised there were delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It offered the following compensation related to complaint handling:
    1. 3 November 2023, late complaint response £50.
    2. 21 February 2024, late complaint response – £100.
    3. 18 July 2024, delayed stage 1 complaint response – £50.
    4. 28 November 2024, delayed stage 1 response – £50.
    5. 23 January 2025, delayed stage 2 response – £50.
78. We understand the resident had raised many complaints and submitted substantial amounts of information to the landlord. We appreciate it was challenging for the it to manage multiple complaints and lengthy emails, which often repeated information or referenced issues to which it had already responded. On balance, this has had an impact on its complaint response times and is a mitigating factor that we have considered when assessing this complaint. Nonetheless, it is not appropriate that the landlord has repeatedly responded late to complaints. This suggests a failure to learn from outcomes.
79. The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address, and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint and show empathy. This impacted her as she kept chasing for responses and felt frustrated and ignored. This affected the number of times she contacted the landlord for an update, which contributed to its allegation of excessive contact. Considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat all her complaints with the necessary attention, care, and importance they deserved.
80. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While it recognised failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint responses to improve its service provision.
81. While reviewing these complaints, we find that while the landlord offered compensation within its final complaint responses, it was not always clear whether this was in addition to the sum it offered at stage 1. A recommendation has been made in this regard.
82. In view of the mitigating circumstances, the compensation awarded, our remedies guidance, and the apologises for its shortcomings, we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failings identified above.

Determination

83. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The associated complaints.
84. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of inappropriate staff conduct.
85. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the contact restrictions it applied to the resident.
86. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her SARs is outside of our jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

87. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise in writing for mis-naming the resident and the failures we identified in its handling of the contact restrictions it applied.
    2. Pay the resident £350 compensation. This comprises:
       1. £50 for its failure to conduct fortnightly calls with the resident as promised, as previously offered.
       2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the contact restrictions, as previously offered.
    3. Contact the resident to set out its position in writing concerning contact restrictions to both its tenancy specialist team and contact centre if it has not yet done so.

Recommendations

88. The landlord should pay the resident the £550 compensation it offered for its handling of her reports of ASB and the £300 it offered for its complaint handling failings. This redress recognises genuine elements of service failure. We have made the reasonable redress finding on the basis this is paid.
89. If the landlord offers compensation at both stages of a complaint, we recommend that it clarifies if the offer at stage 2 is in addition to the sum awarded at stage 1.
90. We recommend that the landlord provides an update to us concerning the implementation of risk assessments in ASB cases.