Clarion Housing Association Limited (202429084)

Background

1. The resident has been reporting ASB (Antisocial behaviour) to his landlord for 8 years. He raised a complaint regarding a request for CCTV and how the ASB cases were being handled. He remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Handling of the resident’s request for CCTV.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for CCTV.
   3. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord largely followed its policies and procedures in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. It provided appropriate redress for its failure to send a closure letter.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s request for CCTV appropriately. It provided updates and followed through on its commitment within its complaint response.
6. The stage 1 complaint response was delayed. The landlord did not provide appropriate redress for this in line with the time and trouble it caused the resident.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. The resident has explained he is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of historical reports of ASB from his neighbours since at least 2018. However, for fairness, we have only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from the 12 months before his stage 1 complaint in February 2025, until its final response in April 2025. This is because the quality and availability of evidence may now not be available. This is in line with the Scheme.

What we have investigated

8. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not conduct a full investigation into every report of ASB as often noise nuisance or one-off events can be resolved by the resident themselves. It operates a threshold system whereby reports which meet the criteria will be taken forward for full investigation. This includes, 3 separate incidents reported in 7 days by the same household, 5 separate incidents reported in 28 days by the same household or two separate incidents reported in 28 days by two or more people from different households. It provided the resident with a copy of these thresholds in January 2024.
9. The resident reported ASB to the landlord on 12 August 2024. He advised that his neighbour had been locked out of his property in the early hours and was trying to gain access. He had become noisy and abusive towards the resident. The police were called and the neighbour was arrested. In response to his report, the landlord completed a triage checklist 2 days after the report. It created an action plan based on this and sent this alongside diary records to the resident on 20 August 2024. It asked the resident to record any further issues. The incident reported did not meet the landlord’s threshold for ASB as a stand-alone incident. It was positive that the landlord was following this up and giving the resident the opportunity to record further incidents.
10. The resident advised he had not received the diary sheets sent by the landlord. In response to this, the landlord extended the deadline for the diary sheets to be completed by an additional month. During this time, the landlord contacted the police and they advised that there was no corroborating evidence regarding the matter, and it would not be taken any further. On 23 October 2024, the landlord informed the resident of this. It advised that it would review the case in 3 weeks and said if no diary sheets were returned by that time, the case would be closed. There is no evidence he returned the diary sheets, and the case was closed on 13 November 2024.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work collaboratively with the police and other agencies. It will use evidence they provide to take enforcement action where appropriate. It was correct that the landlord had contacted the police to discuss the reports of ASB. As the police could provide no evidence of the allegations and the resident did not provide any further incidents through the diary logs provided, the landlord acted in line with its policy by closing the case at that time.
12. The resident made contact on 24 December 2024. He said he had overheard his neighbour using abusive language about him and did not feel safe. He advised he did not want the landlord to hold a phone number for him and asked for postal communication only. The landlord opened a new ASB case and sent an action plan to the resident with diary sheets for him to complete noting any further incidents. The landlord liaised with police and wrote to the resident on 28 January 2025 advising that due to non-engagement from the resident and no third-party independent evidence, the police would take no further action. The landlord advised they would keep the case open for a further 2 weeks. It said if he did not provide diary sheets with further incidents by that time, it would close the case. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy and threshold for conducting full investigations into reports.
13. The landlord closed the ASB case but did not send a letter to the resident informing him of this. This meant the resident did not have clarity on what was happening with the case and remained under the false impression that the case was still open. It is unclear when the resident was informed that the case was closed. It likely would have been a cause of distress to learn of it by way of another enquiry.
14. In the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord recognised this failing. It apologised and provided redress for it. These actions align with our Dispute Resolution Principles of fairness and putting things right. Our remedies guidance states that landlords should compensate residents up to £100 for minor failures in the service provided. Having considered this, the landlord’s compensation policy, and the failure identified, this offer was proportionate in the circumstances and offered reasonable redress for its failing.

15. On 12 November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to request it install CCTV. The landlord discussed this internally and sent a letter to the resident on 15 November 2024 advising it could consider this as part of an estate improvement, and it would need to undertake resident consultation and consider the financial impact before it could consider the request further.
16. In December 2024, the resident asked about what he described as a police recommendation for CCTV. The landlord advised it had not received this. The resident was unhappy with this and felt the landlord had destroyed records of his original request. In addition to its acknowledgement in November 2024, the landlord provided further clarity on the request in its stage 2 complaint response. It advised that no recommendation had been received from the police and set out the process for considering the installation of CCTV. We have found no evidence that the landlord acted inappropriately in response to the resident’s request.
17. The resident told us the landlord has still not responded to his requests for CCTV. As outlined in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord has evidenced that it carried out a resident survey in August 2025. It then wrote to the resident in September 2025 advising that due to a lack of interest from residents it would not take this consultation any further. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident to determine if this is a new request for CCTV so it can review this further and provide an update to the resident.

18. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 18 working days after the resident raised the complaint. This fell outside its advertised timescales and those set out in the Code. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the delay and said it needed additional time to gather information. While we recognise that landlords may sometimes require more time to respond, we have seen no evidence that it requested an extension in line with the Code.
20. While the landlord may not have felt that the late response required financial redress, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the delay and spent further time and trouble escalating the complaint as a result. The landlord should have considered whether redress was appropriate in its stage 2 response. It did not properly acknowledge the impact of the late response on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 for the time and trouble caused by the late stage 1 response. This is in line with our remedies guidance for minor service failures which may have caused the resident further time and trouble.
21. The stage 2 complaint response was issued 14 working days after the resident’s escalation which is within the landlord’s published timescales and the Code.
22. The stage 1 complaint response, although a thorough description of the ASB reports and resulting actions by the landlord, did not address the CCTV request which was the primary reason for the complaint. However, the landlord conducted a thorough review at stage 2 and addressed this issue missed at stage 1. This was proportionate to put this right and in line with the expectations of the Code to address all parts of the complaint definition.
23. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord closed his complaint. He advised he was not aware it had been closed until he received a letter and that he was unhappy it had been closed without resolving all of the issues. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will ‘aim’ to discuss complaint outcomes prior to the closure of the complaint. However, this is not a requirement of its policy or the Code.
24. The landlord provided a full written response to the resident. As the landlord had recorded the resident’s communication preference as letter contact only at that time, it was appropriate for it to respond in that format. The resident has said he was dissatisfied that he was not offered a face‑to‑face meeting to discuss the complaint. We recognise his frustration. The landlord may have felt it was not an appropriate use of its resources to arrange a visit to his property to discuss the complaint. The landlord was also under no obligation to do so. The Code states that landlord’s must confirm the complaint outcome in writing therefore its actions were in line with the Code.
25. The complaint responses addressed all the issues the resident raised. The resident was dissatisfied that the stage 1 complaint was closed while the ASB issue was still ongoing. However, the purpose of the complaints process is to review the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports and assess whether it acted appropriately. It is not designed to resolve ASB itself. If the resident wishes to report further ASB incidents, he should contact the landlord directly.
26. The landlord’s complaint responses were in line with its policy and procedure in place at the time. The resident wanted a panel meeting to discuss the complaint and says this reflects a previous complaints policy the landlord used before the current one. Although this may be disappointing for the resident, the landlord must follow its current policies when delivering services to all residents, which it did. These policies replace any previous versions.

Learning

27. The landlord largely acted in line with its policies. When reviewing the complaint, it acknowledged failings and committed to reviewing these to learn from its mistakes. This was good.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping was good. It provided us with sufficiently detailed records relating to its actions as well as relevant emails and notes of phone calls or letters received from the resident. This enabled us to carry out a thorough investigation.

Communication

29. The landlord at the time had the resident’s communication preference noted as letter contact only. However, he has at times communicated with the landlord by telephone call and by email. The landlord may wish to contact the resident to confirm his current communication preference.