Clarion Housing Association Limited (202403373)

Decision
Case ID	202403373
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 February 2026

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block. In January 2023 the resident reported 2 windows were draughty and the landlord agreed to replace the glass as it had blown. In April 2023 the resident reported he was having problems with 2 neighbours in the block. He said one was walking around the back of his property and the other was harassing him and dealing drugs. The landlord raised 2 cases, which were subsequently closed as the resident had not provided a Police crime reference number (CRN).

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by neighbours between April and July 2023.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for a kitchen extractor fan to be removed.
   3. Response to the resident’s request for additional insulation to be installed.
   4. Handling of window repairs.
   5. Handling of the associated formal complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his reports of ASB by neighbours between April and July 2023.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for:
   1. A kitchen extractor fan to be removed.
   2. Additional insulation to be installed.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window repairs.
   2. The associated formal complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There were minor communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports that did not affect the overall outcome. The landlord has taken reasonable action to put things right.
8. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen extractor fan to be removed was reasonable.
9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional insulation to be installed was reasonable. There was a record keeping failure, but this did not cause detriment to the resident.
10. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s handling of window repairs. The landlord apologised and offered compensation but this was not quite proportionate to the failures.
11. The stage 1 response was delayed and the landlord failed to address all of the resident’s concerns at stage 1. The landlord acknowledged the failures and offered redress, but some of this was offered after our intervention and not on the landlord’s own initiative.

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	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £225 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £125 for its handling of window repairs (inclusive of the £50 already offered). The £100 already offered for its complaint handling, if not done so.	No later than 06 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation offered for its handling of his reports of ASB by neighbours between April and July 2023, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
The landlord should provide staff guidance on the importance of, and process for, recording inspections.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 May 2025	The resident complained that the landlord had closed his ASB cases without taking any action. He said there were outstanding jobs to install additional insulation, replace windows and remove an old extractor fan.
26 June 2023	The landlord’s stage 1 response said there had been service failure in its handling of one of his ASB cases. It said it had opened a case for his report about drug dealing without a CRN and should not have done so. It apologised and offered £100 compensation (£50 for its handling of his ASB report and £50 for complaint handling).
27 June 2023	The resident escalated the complaint saying he had provided a CRN for a report made in February 2023 about the drug dealing. He said he had not provided a CRN for the other report as he did not believe the neighbour following him around his property was a crime. He said the landlord had not addressed his other concerns.
1 August 2023	The landlord’s stage 2 response said the CRN provided was not sufficient to open an ASB case for investigation. It said there was no evidence of service failure in its handling of his ASB reports. It confirmed it would not remove the extractor fan as this helped prevent damp and mould. It would not install additional insulation as its surveyor had not recommended this. It identified failure in its handling of the window repairs, apologised and offered £50 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord failed to properly investigate his ASB reports. He wanted it to move the neighbour, pay compensation, remove the extractor fan and replace the windows.
4 September 2024	The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation for failures in its handling of the stage 1 complaint.

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	The resident’s reports of ASB by neighbours between April and July 2023
Finding	Reasonable redress

12. We determined a previous complaint from the resident (202219576) about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB in February 2024. The period of assessment was from November 2022, to the landlord’s final response on 8 March 2023. We will not assess the same issue or period more than once. Therefore, this investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB between April and July 2023 only.
13. The resident said a neighbour was harassing him and dealing drugs. The landlord’s ASB policy in place at the time said it categorised ASB reports in 3 ways. One of these was ‘crime (category 1)’. As the ASB reported was criminal activity, it was appropriate that the landlord categorised the report in this way.
14. The policy said where ASB was a result of criminal activity the landlord expected residents to report this to the Police. The landlord’s ASB procedure said it would ask for a CRN to ensure the problem was reported to the Police, before it would investigate. The resident did not provide a CRN in the initial email report. The landlord’s procedure said it would ask for one, but there is no evidence it did for this case. It subsequently cancelled the case as no CRN had been provided. There is no evidence it told the resident what it had done. This was not in line with its ASB procedure.
15. The landlord should have contacted the resident to ask for a CRN. We know now that the resident did not have a recent CRN to provide, which means the outcome would have been the same and the case would have been closed. Considering this, the failure of the landlord not asking for a CRN was minor and did not affect the overall outcome.
16. The landlord said in the stage 1 response that it should not have opened the case and identified this as a failure. This was incorrect. The landlord’s ASB procedure said where a resident did not provide a CRN it would decide how to progress the case, for example closing the case. This indicates a case should be logged and closed. This is appropriate to ensure the landlord is keeping adequate records of contacts received and decisions made in response.
17. The resident submitted diary sheets in early July 2023 with details of behaviour by the neighbour that he said was related to drug dealing. He provided a CRN for a report made in February 2023. The landlord raised a case but told him it would not take further action and this would be closed because the CRN did not relate to recent incidents. While frustrating for the resident, this was reasonable. The resident has said he provided the CRN to the landlord in February 2023 and it failed to investigate at that time. We have not assessed this concern as part of this investigation as this timeframe was covered by our previous investigation.
18. As part of the complaint, the landlord reviewed its decision to close the case in early July 2023. In the stage 2 response it said the diary sheets included incidents of the neighbour coming and going from their property, which were everyday living activities. Its ASB policy said it would not investigate events that were considered everyday living activities. Therefore, it believed it was the correct decision to close the case. While frustrating for the resident, this was again reasonable.
19. In April 2023 the resident reported another neighbour was walking around at the back of his property during the day and night. The landlord categorised the report as ‘crime (category 1)’ and, on this occasion, wrote to him asking him to provide a CRN. The landlord was correctly following its ASB procedure by askinghim to provide this. However, the report made was not criminal activity and so it should not have been categorised as such. As part of the initial report, the resident told the landlord he did not believe it was a crime and said he wanted it to speak with the neighbour. The landlord should have responded directly to this request, rather than incorrectly telling him to report it to the Police.
20. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would not conduct a full investigation into every report of ASB. It expected residents to try to resolve problems themselves first by speaking to their neighbour. Considering the nature of the resident’s concern, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it would not take any action and advise the resident to discuss this with his neighbour directly. The landlord told the resident it closed the case ashe did not provide a CRN. While this was not an appropriate reason given the behaviour was not criminal activity, the outcome of it closing the case was the same. Therefore, this was a minor failure that did not affect the overall outcome.
21. While the landlord did not formally investigate the resident’s reports, it told him it had contacted the Police. It also told him it would send details of support agencies that may be able to help him, which it subsequently did. These actions were in line with its ASB policy which said it would adopt a supportive approach and work in partnership with external agencies.
22. The landlord identified failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered £50 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
23. Considering the full circumstances of the case, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of his ASB reports. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £50 compensation offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a kitchen extractor fan to be removed
Finding	No maladministration

24. We have previously determined 3 complaints about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen extractor fan and installation of a cooker hood between July 2020 and March 2024. These complaints assessed the landlord’s actions between December 2019 to December 2022. We will not assess the same issue or period more than once. Therefore, our assessment of this matter is limited to the period of this complaint only.
25. The landlord is responsible for repairs to electrical installations in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This includes extractor fans. The resident said he wanted the landlord to remove an old extractor fan in the kitchen. As the resident was asking the landlord to remove the fan, rather than repair it, it was not legally required to do this. However, it was appropriate that it considered and responded to the resident’s request.
26. The landlord told the resident it would not remove the fan as it helped to prevent damp and mould. The landlord has a legal obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp. Ensuring there is adequate ventilation is a vital part of managing and preventing damp and mould. Therefore, it was reasonable that it declined to remove the extractor fan for this reason. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the fan to be removed.
27. The landlord has confirmed it subsequently removed the extractor fan in January 2024. We have not assessed its handling of this as it happened after the stage 2 response was issued in August 2023.

Complaint	The resident’s request for additional insulation to be installed
Finding	No maladministration

28. Under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from hazards, including excessive cold.
29. The resident said the landlord inspected on 9 May 2023 regarding his concern that the property was excessively cold. This was appropriate to investigate his concern. In the stage 2 response, the landlord said it would not install insulation as its surveyor had not recommended this. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its surveyor to decide whether to install more insulation.
30. While the landlord’s action and decision were reasonable, we have seen no record of the inspection. It is vital that landlords keep detailed records of all inspections to account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. In this case, the landlord cannot account for its decision making because of a record keeping failure.
31. As the landlord considered the resident’s concern and fed back to him, there was no detriment caused by the record keeping failure. For this reason, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for additional insulation to be installed. We recommend the landlord provide staff guidance on the importance of, and process for, recording inspections.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of window repairs.
Finding	Service failure

32. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including windows, in accordance with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. When the resident reported draughts from the windows on 18 January 2023, the landlord inspected 12 days later, on 30 January 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe considering there were no safety concerns reported.
33. The landlord agreed to replace the glass that had blown, but did not raise a job for this until nearly 3 months later, on 24 April 2023. This contributed to the overall delay in it repairing the windows. As the landlord needed to wait for the glass to be made, it is reasonable that this job took longer than a routine repair, which its repairs policy says it will complete within 28 days.
34. Where there are delays in the landlord completing repairs, it should proactively update residents during the period of delay. On at least one occasion in May 2023 the landlord noted the glass was not ready. There is no evidence it contacted the resident to tell him this. The lack of updates left the resident not knowing when the windows would be repaired. This contributed to him making the formal complaint.
35. The landlord confirmed it attended on 24 July 2023 to replace the glass but could not as it was not the right size. It said this was because it had been measured incorrectly. This was an avoidable mistake which contributed to the overall delay in the landlord repairing the windows. By the time the landlord sent its stage 2 response, it had been over 6 months since the resident reported the window repairs. While some of this delay was outside of the landlord’s control, there were failures which contributed to the delay.
36. The landlord identified failure in its handling of the window repairs, apologised and offered £50 compensation. This was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. However, considering the failures identified and the impact on the resident, the redress offered was not quite proportionate. Therefore a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation (inclusive of the £50 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact.
37. The landlord has confirmed the window repairs were completed in December 2023. This is outside the scope of this investigation as it happened after the stage 2 response was sent on 1 August 2023. As the repairs are now complete, we have not made any orders in respect of this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

38. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would log and acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. It would respond within 20 working days of the complaint being logged at stage 1 and within 40 working days at stage 2.
39. The landlord logged the stage 1 complaint on 18 May 2023. We have seen no evidence it sent a formal acknowledgement. This was not in line with its complaints policy. The landlord sent the response in 26 working days, over the committed timescale.
40. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 12 July 2023, 11 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was 1 working day over the committed timescale so a minor delay and not a failure. The landlord sent the stage 2 response 14 working days later, in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy.
41. The landlord’s stage 1 response only addressed the resident’s complaint about its handling of his ASB reports. It failed to respond to his concerns about outstanding works. This means these concerns were only considered at stage 2 of the landlord’s process. This failure meant the landlord did not get the chance to review its position and potentially put things right for the resident sooner. It also left him feeling it was not taking the complaint seriously.
42. The landlord identified failure in its complaint handling, apologised and offered a total of £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact. While the redress offered was reasonable, some of this was only offered after we contacted the landlord about our investigation. This means the landlord did not, on its own initiative, put things right for the resident. Because of this, we cannot make a finding of reasonable redress and a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation already offered, if not done so.

Learning

43. The landlord should follow its ASB procedure and ask for a CRN if one is not provided in the initial report.
44. The landlord should correctly categorise ASB reports so it can respond appropriately.
45. The landlord should work with partner agencies and consider support options for residents, as it did in this case.
46. The landlord should raise works orders promptly when works are identified. It should ensure replacement components are correctly measured to avoid delay.
47. Where the landlord identifies failure, it should offer appropriate redress to put things right. This should be done as part of the landlord’s internal process and not because of our intervention.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. We have seen no record of an inspection completed on 9 May 2023. The landlord should keep a detailed record of all inspections so it can account for its actions and decisions to residents and us, where required. The missing record means it has been unable to do that in this case.

Communication

49. Where repairs are delayed, the landlord should proactively update residents so they are kept informed of progress.
50. The landlord should ensure it addresses all concerns raised as part of complaints. This is so it can consider the issues at both stages of the complaints process and put things right for the resident at the earliest opportunity.