Clarion Housing Association Limited (202432466)

Background

1. The resident and her partner have mental health conditions, which the landlord was aware of. Between February 2023 and October 2024, the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour, including shouting, loud music, banging, and threats. The landlord logged the reports, spoke with relevant parties, agreed action plans, reviewed evidence, and informed the resident when it closed cases. It also signposted her to support services and worked with agencies such as the police, local authority, and other partners.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s ASB reports.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered redress to the resident about its handling of the resident’s ASB reports prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
4. The landlord has offered redress to the resident about its handling of the associated complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This results in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident ASB reports

5. Overall, the landlord handled the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. It logged her reports, discussed the issues with her and relevant parties and agreed action plans. It collected and reviewed evidence, updated the resident and informed her when closing cases. It also demonstrated working in partnership with other agencies. However, we identified failings such as failing to contact the police and suitably communicate with the resident in October 2023. The landlord offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the inconvenience caused to her by its failings. Its offer was proportionate and reflected the impact of the failings identified in this report.

The associated complaint 

6. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued its stage 1 response within its published timeframe. However, there was a short delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, which the landlord acknowledged. It offered compensation to the resident which reflected the impact of the delay on her.

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.

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.

7. The landlord was not directly responsible for the ASB, but it had a duty, under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to respond to the resident’s ASB reports with a victim centred approach.
8. The landlord logged the resident’s ASB reports on 27 February 2023 but did not complete a full investigation. This was in line with its ASB policy, which requires five separate incidents in 28 days before a full investigation. The resident reported four incidents of loud music and banging in February 2023 and asked to remain anonymous, which limited the landlord’s ability to act. We saw no evidence of further reports. The landlord closed the case on 20 April 2023 and informed the resident of its decision. These actions were reasonable.
9. The resident made further reports of ASB involving her neighbour on 8 May 2023, the landlord logged her reports, investigated the matters and liaised with other professionals in line with its ASB policy. It attempted to discuss the matter with the resident on 16 May 2023, but she refused and said she had nothing to add to her report about her neighbour shouting at the police. The landlord showed that it liaised with the police about the incident. It then informed the resident that it had issued a warning to the neighbour about the disturbance, and of its decision to close the case.
10. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord agreed an action plan with the resident on 16 October 2023. It committed to investigate the issues, liaise with the police, update the resident, and it offered mediation. The resident provided diary sheets showing 2 incidents of noise nuisance in October 2023. Although the nuisance may not have met the threshold for a full investigation, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had reviewed the evidence or explained its decision not to take further action. It also failed to maintain the agreed contacts or notify the resident when it closed the case. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its ASB policy to manage residents’ expectations. However, we did not see evidence that its failings impacted on the resident. This is because we did not see evidence that she sought updates about this case until January 2024.
11. The evidence shows that the landlord worked in partnership with other agencies throughout its investigations, in line with its ASB policy. For instance:
    1. In January 2024, it engaged with the local authority during the ASB case review. The review confirmed that the landlord had investigated the resident’s reports but found no suitable evidence to justify further action. Following this, the landlord completed the actions agreed during the review. It sent a letter to all residents in the block reminding them of their responsibilities under their tenancy agreements and made enquiries about referring the resident to the community mental health team.
    2. In February 2024 it appropriately liaised with the police about the resident’s reports that her neighbour was smoking and selling cannabis.
12. Between May and December 2024, the landlord correctly logged further ASB reports from the resident. It demonstrated compliance with its ASB policy by discussing matters with the parties, sharing action plans, reviewing evidence and the progress of the case, and keeping in contact with the resident. It also carried out a door-knocking exercise in partnership with the local authority to understand ASB in the area. While we have seen a number of appropriate actions, we also identified failings, for example:
    1. The landlord informed the resident that it would liaise with its partner agency following an incident in May 2024, where her neighbour shouted and smashed items in his flat. Although the resident reported that the police attended, the landlord did not show that it had discussed the matter with the police as agreed in its action plan.
    2. In July 2024 the resident reported that someone banged on her door and shouted abuse and threats. She said the police attended. The landlord did not show that it had contacted the police about it until September 2024 or explained the 2 months delay in doing so. We did not see evidence that the delay impacted on the overall outcome as the police informed the landlord that they found no evidence of a crime and would not take further actions.
13. The evidence shows that in July 2024, the resident experienced difficulties sharing her video doorbell footage of an incident where someone made threats at her door. The landlord acted reasonably by visiting the property, viewing the footage, and recording a copy. Although it did not resolve the issue of transferring large video files, the landlord ensured the evidence was collected and reviewed, which was reasonable.
14. We understand that the resident later disputed whether the landlord accurately recorded her doorbell footage on 31 July 2024. As an impartial service, we base our decision on evidence. When there are conflicting accounts between parties and independent evidence cannot verify what occurred, we cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord. In this case, we did not see that the evidence collected by the landlord misrepresented the events. Therefore, we cannot determine a failure by the landlord in collecting the evidence.
15. We found the landlord acted promptly and proportionately once it received confirmation from the police about the perpetrator’s identity in the July 2024 incident. In October 2024, it acted on the resident’s report that police had identified the individual. The police confirmed on 26 November 2024, that the perpetrator was a neighbour’s visitor.
16. The landlord reviewed this new evidence and issued a written warning to the neighbour on 9 December 2024. Although there was a delay in receiving this information, we have seen no evidence this was due to a failing by the landlord. We did not see evidence that the police had disclosed the identity of the perpetrator when the landlord discussed the case with them in September 2024. Once informed, the landlord acted in line with its ASB policy.
17. The landlord demonstrated that it reasonably addressed the resident’s concerns about the NRO assigned to her ASB cases. In its complaint responses, it explained that it investigated her concerns and found no evidence of unprofessional conduct. While it explained it could not replace the officer, it implemented measures to reassure the resident by arranging for 2 staff members to attend when visiting her. These actions were appropriate and demonstrated that, although the landlord did not uphold the resident’s claim, it took steps to mitigate her concerns.
18. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays in identifying the perpetrator in July 2024. While we have not considered this being in the landlord’s control it appropriately reflected that this delay may have caused some detriment to the resident. It offered to pay £150 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its handling of ASB. This was in line with its compensation policy, which requires it to offer compensation when it had made a mistake and caused inconvenience to a resident.
19. However, we recognised that we have identified failings by the landlord in its handling of the ASB reports in October 2023 and May 2024 which it missed to address. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for cases, where failings negatively affected a resident without causing permanent impact. In this case the landlord’s offer was within this range, proportionate and reflected the impact of the failings identified in this report. This also reflects that we did not see evidence the failings impacted the resident’s overall outcome and that the landlord mostly handled her ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. Therefore, the landlord’s offer amounted to “reasonable redress”.

20. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It elaborates that if it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will agree an extension with the resident.
21. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints at both stages and issued its stage 1 complaint response in line with its complaint policy. However, it acknowledged that it issued its stage 2 complaint response 5 days outside its published timeframe.
22. While on 12 November 2024, it requested to extend the timeframe to respond to the resident’s complaint, it did not show this was agreed or communicated to the resident, which was not in line with its complaint policy. Overall, these failures did not have significant impact on the resident or the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. As such the £50 compensation offered to the resident in reflection of its complaint handling failing was a reasonable and proportionate offer, which reflected the impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. Overall, the landlord kept accurate and eligible records of the matters, creating a clear audit trail of the resident’s reports and the actions taken.

Communication

24. The landlord generally updated the resident on her cases and considered her preferred communication method. However, there were times when it failed to communicate the outcome of its actions, such as in October 2024, when it did not inform her of its decisions after she submitted evidence of noise nuisance.