Clarion Housing Association Limited (202343145)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). These reports were mainly about the noise their neighbour was making in the flat directly below them. The resident was not happy with its final complaint response as the issue was still ongoing and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of ASB

6. The landlord failed to ensure that an external survey was completed “within a few weeks” as it had assured the resident within its stage 2 response.

Handling of the complaint

7. The landlord delayed in responding to the complaint and missed an opportunity to put things 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.

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.

8. The resident has said the issue with their neighbour making noise started in August 2023. The resident reported her concerns to the landlord on 1 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the report and sent an action plan to the resident on 6 September 2023. These actions were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The action plan set out it needed further time and evidence to investigate the matter. This was reasonable in the circumstances as the landlord would have needed further evidence to support the resident’s reports and help it decide on the best course of action to take. The resident reported issues with her neighbour making noise again to the landlord on 6 September 2023.
9. The landlord acted appropriately to work with multiple agencies, including the council’s noise team and the police. We have seen evidence it discussed practical measures to reduce noise, including installing slow-release doors. It also provided the noise app and diary sheets so the resident could evidence her reports. This was in line with its ASB policy. It later appropriately issued a final warning to the neighbour after witnessing noise disturbance during a visit on 22 November 2023. This shows it was proactively responding to the reports it had received and using the measures available to it under its ASB policy. We are also satisfied that the actions taken by the landlord at this time were proportionate to the reports it had received and the evidence of the incidents it had available.
10. The landlord showed throughout its investigation it was responsive to the resident’s reports and issued timely action plans. It also appropriately considered mediation. Although this was ultimately unsuccessful, it was a practical way to try to resolve the dispute between the neighbours.
11. While the landlord was waiting for mediation to take place it continued to liaise with other services. Following a meeting with the police and council on 17 January 2024 the landlord told the resident the council would install a noise equipment machine, to continue to report any issues with their neighbour to a single point of contact (at the landlord) and report any criminal offences to the police. This was reasonable as the landlord provided an update to the resident about the next steps that were taking place and also provided information about where the resident could seek support if she needed to.
12. We have seen evidence that the landlord assessed the evidence it had available to it and came to a reasoned decision to close the case. It appropriately communicated this to the resident and the agencies involved at the time. We also recognised that it appropriately re-opened the case when the resident made further reports in March 2024. It also provided an action plan, signposted her to further support, and provided advice and guidance about a managed move. In line with its policy the landlord could not take further enforcement action because of the lack of evidence that would be robust enough for a successful possession action. Instead, it gave other appropriate options to the resident.
13. The resident continued to report instances of noise on 5 April 2024. The landlord sent a further action plan on 25 April 2024. An ASB review meeting was arranged with the council for 21 May 2024 which was attended by the resident. This was reasonable by the landlord as it continued to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and provided a further action plan. It also showed that it was taking appropriate steps to resolve the matter by liaising with the council and including the resident in this.
14. We have seen the landlord regularly considered the resident’s wellbeing. Although it was not using the national risk assessment matrix at the time it did ask its own vulnerability and wellbeing questions to establish whether the resident required additional support. As a result of this, the landlord offered the resident support through its own services and referred her to external services. The landlord’s records show the resident told it she did not need the extra support it offered as she was already being supported elsewhere. We are therefore satisfied the landlord was aware of the needs of the resident and was aware of the levels of risk which it kept under review. However, in the absence of a formal risk assessment, it would have been good practice to maintain a formal record of observations made at the time and any follow up actions.
15. The landlord continued to appropriately work with other agencies. Following the ASB review meeting in May 2024 the landlord agreed to carry out a survey of the building. It also continued to review the case as agreed at this meeting.The landlord requested an independent survey on 5 June 2024 but has explained this was not carried out until 15 October 2024 due to the time taken in securing funds to instruct an external expert. It is noted that the decision in relation to funding was outside of the landlord’s control. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord was being proactive in relation to matters that still fell within its control and whether it was chasing the matter with a view to progressing the survey. Nevertheless, we are reasonably satisfied that this delay was unavoidable.
16. However, in its stage 2 response of 16 August 2024, it said the survey would happen “in the next few weeks”.  The landlord therefore raised the resident’s expectations that the survey would take place sooner than it did. It is unclear whether the landlord had believed that the survey could take place within this timescale and it then encountered a further delay. However, if this had been the case, it would have been reasonable for it to ensure that the resident had been updated. We have seen no evidence that the landlord was proactive in updating the resident. Given the assurance it had provided as to when the survey would take place, it would have been prudent to inform her of the delay and to provide a revised timescale. As the landlord did not do so, the resident was caused further distress and inconvenience and this has resulted in our finding of service failure.
17. The resident reported further noise to the landlord on 11 June, 11 July, 6 and 12 August 2024. The landlord spoke with the neighbour about the complaints against them on 18 June and 9 October 2024. The landlord spoke with the resident on 12 July 2024 to discuss the option of a managed move and it needed the results of the independent survey before it could undertake any remedial work. This was appropriate as the landlord continued to deal with the matter under its ASB policy and inform the resident of the options available to her.
18. We are aware the resident continued to report issues with her neighbour after the landlord’s stage 2 response in August 2024 and the landlord did respond to these. We have not assessed the landlord’s actions after this as it has not been through its own internal complaint procedure. If the resident is concerned about how recent reports of ASB have been dealt with by the landlord, she may wish to raise a new complaint accordingly.

19. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or the Complaint Handling Code for the following reasons:
    1. It should have issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days, but it took 21 working days.
    2. It did not address the issues raised in its stage 1 response about the impact the ASB was having on the resident.
    3. It did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when requested on 10 July 2024 which delayed the landlord’s complaint response.
    4. It should have issued its stage 1 response within 20 working days, but it took 27 working days.
20. During stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord recognised its failure to address all the issues and its delay in escalating the resident’s complaint. To put things right it offered a total of £100 for its failures. However, it failed to recognise its delays in issuing a response at stage 1 and stage 2. Therefore, we do not consider it recognised the full extent of the overall delays experienced by the resident nor the time and trouble this caused her. We have therefore ordered further compensation accordingly.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. In this case the landlord kept records of its meetings, call and emails with all parties involved. This has meant we have been able to thoroughly review the resident’s complaint and the actions the landlord took.