Clarion Housing Association Limited (202316556)

Decision
Case ID	202316556
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	10 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has experienced recurring antisocial behaviour (ASB) for several years. In March 2023, the landlord obtained an injunction order against the perpetrator. However, the resident raised complaints with the landlord in 2024 and again in 2025 because of recurring communication problems during its subsequent handling of the ASB. Both the resident and the resident’s daughter contacted the landlord about these issues. For ease of readability, we have referred to them collectively as ‘the resident’ in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Communication with the resident during its handling of the ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its communication with the resident during its handling of the ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

4. The landlord repeatedly failed to ensure that it appropriately communicated with the resident during its handling of the ASB. There was also a lack of learning, as evidenced by the recurring failures. Although it acknowledged its failings and made offers of redress, it was not sufficient to fully put things right.

Complaint handling

5. There were repeated delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints, which exceeded the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord offered an appropriate remedy during its complaints procedure, which was sufficient 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. The landlord must provide us with a copy of this apology by the due date.	No later than 10 March 2026
2	Communication order The landlord must contact the resident in writing and provide a detailed update on the current status of their ASB case. It must also commit to a schedule for providing ongoing updates and set out a specific frequency for these. The landlord must provide us with evidence that it has done this by the due date.	No later than 10 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 May 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s communication (Complaint A). They said that, despite reporting ongoing ASB, they did not feel that the landlord had taken action or listened to them.
24 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint A, in which it: Apologised for not correctly logging the resident’s recent ASB reports, which meant the resident was not contacted when they should have been. Accepted that its communication had fallen below expected standards and said it would provide fortnightly updates going forward. Said that action was being taken to address the reported ASB, but it was limited in what it could share due to confidentiality. Awarded £250 in recognition of these failures.
22 July 2024	The resident escalated their complaint because the landlord did not provide the fortnightly updates it had committed to.
23 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to Complaint A. It apologised for failing to meet the communication commitments it had made. It said it would learn from this and ensure the resident received regular updates without needing to chase for them. It awarded an additional £50 in recognition of this failure.
25 July 2025	The resident raised a further complaint (Complaint B) about the landlord’s handling of the ASB over several years. They gave various examples of where they felt things had gone wrong, including multiple communication failures that they said contributed to their overall distress. They also highlighted that they had not been kept updated on the progress of extending an injunction order. They said the recurring communication failures left them feeling demoralised.
8 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to Complaint B. It apologised for the delay in responding and said it needed additional time to investigate the complaint. It acknowledged that there had been communication failures that were likely to have caused the resident distress. It awarded £50 for the complaint handling delays and £100 for the communication failures.
25 September 2025	The resident escalated their complaint because they felt the landlord was not taking appropriate action and that its communication had not improved. They also questioned what action had been taken following previous discussions about applying for possession to evict the perpetrator, which they said the landlord had not clearly addressed.
23 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to Complaint B. It apologised for the communication failures during its handling of the ASB, accepting that its communication had been poor. It provided a summary of the action it had taken in response to the ASB and explained why it had decided not to apply for a possession order. It said it would learn from the communication failures. The landlord increased its award to £900 for the failures in its handling of the ASB and the time taken to resolve the complaint. It also awarded £50 for failing to address all elements of the resident’s stage 1 complaint (Complaint B).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because they were dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s complaint procedure and felt there had been a lack of learning.

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 landlord’s communication with the resident during its handling of ASB
Finding	Service failure

6. Under its ASB policy, the landlord is expected to take a victim‑focused approach when responding to ASB. Clear and timely communication is a key part of this approach because it helps maintain transparency and reduce distress. The landlord does not dispute that there were communication failures during its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. Its complaint responses and compensation awards confirm this. Our role is to assess whether it did enough to put things right for the resident during its complaints procedure.
7. We identified several instances between March 2023 and May 2024 where the landlord’s communication fell short of expectations and likely added to the resident’s distress. These included the landlord not:
   1. Providing the resident with the fortnightly updates set out in a March 2023 action plan.
   2. Sharing a physical copy of the injunction order after saying it would provide one.
   3. Taking a proactive, victim‑focused approach by not contacting the resident after the police notified it of a serious ASB incident in February 2024.
   4. Recording ASB reports correctly, which meant the resident was not contacted when they should have been.
8. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures in its Complaint A stage 1 and stage 2 responses and made specific commitments to improve its communication. Under the Code, landlords are expected to follow through on commitments made during the complaints procedure. The landlord did not do so, which was a failure. This indicated a lack of learning and likely added to the resident’s distress in the months that followed.
9. Between October 2024 and March 2025, the resident raised on more than 3 occasions that they were worried about the injunction order ending in March 2025. Despite this, the landlord did not proactively keep the resident updated on the outcome of its efforts to extend the injunction order. As a result, the landlord missed opportunities to try to minimise the resident’s distress, which was likely made worse by the uncertainty. This was a clear failure to implement its stated victim‑focused approach to handling ASB.
10. In June 2025, the landlord told the resident that the injunction had been extended, more than 2 months after the extension was granted. This was an unreasonable delay, which caused avoidable distress. The landlord should have informed the resident much sooner and ensured that the impact on the service that the “staffing challenges” it attributed to the delay was as minimal as possible.
11. There were further delays in the landlord sharing a copy of the injunction with the resident, which may have added to their frustration. It did not share a copy of it until September 2025. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response to Complaint B that the delay was due to court processes. This was an appropriate explanation. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept the resident updated while the delay continued. By not doing so, it missed another opportunity to maintain transparency and reduce the resident’s likely distress. We welcome that it acknowledged this during its complaints procedure, as it shows accountability.
12. Good record keeping is essential because it helps landlords maintain accountability and transparency. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect. For example, in its stage 2 response to Complaint B, the landlord said it had decided that pursuing a possession order to evict the perpetrator was not proportionate. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged during its complaints procedure that it had not responded appropriately to the resident’s repeated requests for updates on this matter. However, we have seen no clear evidence showing how it reached this conclusion or how it had previously managed the resident’s expectations about considering this action. This was a failure to maintain accurate and comprehensive records. It also fell short of our expectation that landlords keep records that provide a clear audit trail of their decision‑making.
13. Across both complaint procedures we have investigated, the landlord awarded the resident a total of £1,100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its communication failures. This amount aligns with what our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests may be appropriate where the resident has been significantly affected by a landlord’s errors over a prolonged period. The landlord has confirmed that it has already paid this award to the resident.
14. In its Complaint A and B responses, the landlord appropriately explained to the resident that there were limits to what it could share about the ASB action it was taking due to confidentiality. We do not seek to dispute this. However, we identified several opportunities where clearer and more timely communication could have managed the resident’s expectations, explained the steps the landlord was taking, and helped them feel listened to and supported. Although the landlord acknowledged these shortcomings during the complaints procedure, it did not demonstrate that it had learned from them. It also missed the opportunity to make new commitments to improve its communication with the resident. As a result, it has not taken any action aimed at ensuring that similar errors are not repeated in the future.
15. Since the landlord issued its final complaint response in October 2025, we are aware that further ASB has occurred. The resident told us in January 2026 that there had also been additional communication failures. We cannot assess these concerns at this stage because the landlord has not yet had the opportunity to respond. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if they have not already done so. If they remain dissatisfied after the landlord issues its response, they may bring the matter to us as a new complaint.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord has a published complaints policy that aligns with the Code. The policy requires it to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord accepted that it failed to meet these timescales.

Complaint A

17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint around 6 working days after it received it. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response around 4 working days beyond the required timeframe, a delay it appropriately apologised for. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint around 9 working days after receiving it. While it apologised for this at the time, the repeated delay was likely to have caused the resident some distress and did not demonstrate learning. Once it acknowledged the complaint, it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 August 2024, which was within the required timeframe.

Complaint B

18. On 30 July 2025, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 September 2025, which exceeded the required timescale. While it said in its response that it needed more time to investigate the complaint, its complaints policy required it to agree any extension with the resident in advance. It did not do so, which was a failure to follow its policy. This was likely to have added to the resident’s frustration about the landlord’s communication.
19. It was a further failure that the landlord did not address all elements of the resident’s complaint. Under its complaints policy, it was required to do so. This likely inconvenienced the resident, who escalated their complaint on 25 September 2025. The landlord awarded an appropriate remedy for this at the time. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s September 2025 stage 1 complaint around 6 working days after it was raised, which slightly exceeded the required timeframe. It issued its stage 2 response around 16 working days after acknowledgement, which was within the required timeframe.

Putting things right

20. The recurring failures were the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord’s total award of £150 for its complaint handling aligns with what our remedies guidance suggests may be appropriate where failures have adversely affected the resident but have not had a permanent impact. The landlord has confirmed that it has already paid this award to the resident.

Learning

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell significantly short of our expectations for effective communication. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of resident‑focused and proactive communication. The landlord may wish to review its communication practices in line with the recommendations set out in that report, if it has not already done so.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record keeping. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail. The landlord may wish to review its record‑keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report.