Clarion Housing Association Limited (202438888)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438888

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 4 December 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident lives with his wife and 2 young children.
On 13 November 2023, the resident reported an incident to the landlord which he said involved the perpetrator making bomb threats towards the resident following which he had called the emergency services. The perpetrator had been in possession of a substance called ferric chloride. The landlord opened an ASB case, created an action plan and then informed the resident, after no further incidents, that it had closed the case on 9 February 2024.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 August 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. On the evening before the perpetrator had experienced a mental health episode during which he told the resident he had spilled acid in his property some of which had gone on his hand. The resident had called the police.
2. He had previously raised concerns about the perpetrator’s behaviour, but the landlord had closed the case.
3. He had raised a complaint to the police professional standards board about the November incident which was upheld.
4. The resident said he could not overstate the severity of the situation as in November the police had found a container of ferric chloride in the perpetrator’s possession. He said the risk to his family’s safety was “intolerable” and “significant.”
5. He urged the landlord to immediate and decisive action to address the matter and asked that the landlord move either his family or the perpetrator.
On 16 August 2024, the landlord completed a police disclosure request, raised the relevant safeguarding referrals, and referred the case to its community multi-agency risk assessment conference (CMARAC). It completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident on 15 August 2024 and told the resident it would provide a further update following the CMARAC on 6 September 2024.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 6 September 2024 as it said the incident required no further investigation.
It provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It gave the history of the earlier incident in November 2023 and explained that following that it had received no further reports of ASB until the incident on 13 August 2024.
2. It confirmed that it while the police complaint from November 2023 was upheld, it would not revisit the ASB case.
3. It had raised internal and external safeguards, tried a home visit to the perpetrator’s property, and had done a police disclosure request which found nothing.
4. It confirmed the resident did not meet the criteria for a managed moved and linked that reasoning to its policy.
5. It did not uphold the complaint as it had followed its policy but offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process on 11 October 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. He was unhappy that the landlord had refused to reopen the previous ASB case and instead opened a new one.
2. He said the only response he had received from the landlord was for it to say carrying acid was not an offence and it had dismissed the threats made by the perpetrator. It found the comment by the landlord “insulting.”
3. The landlord had not involved him in the CMARAC and asked how it was meant to help him without him being involved.
4. The perpetrator had continued to harass him and when he had discussed the issues with the tenancy officer, he felt unsupported.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. With regards to its refusal to reopen the previous ASB case, it said the incident in August 2024 was new and therefore it investigated it as such, in line with its policy.
2. The police complaint was an independent review into the police handling of the incident reported and not the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
3. It had evaluated the merits of the reviewing the previous ASB case and found no further investigation was necessary.
4. It was not aware of any incident where the perpetrator had entered another resident’s property. It provided details on how the resident could report any ASB incident.
5. In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord’s only response was to note that carrying acid was not illegal it confirmed that it issued a warning to the perpetrator about the conduct but said the substance used was a drain cleaner. It confirmed it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and investigated the ASB in line with its policy.
6. It was normal for a resident not to be involved in the CMARAC but confirmed it had sent the resident the actions agreed following the meeting.
7. It apologised for any upset caused throughout the conversation with the tenancy officer and apologised for its oversight in not including a response to the resident’s frustrations about an interaction at stage 1.
8. It offered £100 for not addressing all the points at stage 1 and £50 for the delayed stage 2 response.
In referring the complaint to us, the resident said the ASB persists, and he would like the situation to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Not every instance of ASB reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to evaluate the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were appropriate to the situation and in line with its policies and procedures.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 13 November 2023 to report that the perpetrator had made bomb threats and been in possession of ferric chloride, it appropriately responded to the resident to confirm it had opened an ASB case. It completed an action plan the following day and undertook an interview with the resident to fully understand the nature of the incident. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord also liaised with the police, on 14 November 2023, to obtain further information on the incident so it could understand the current situation and assess the risk posed to the resident. Again, this was in line with its ASB policy which says it will liaise with the police in relevant cases.
The landlord sent its action plan to the resident on 14 November 2023, while it asked the resident to provide further information about the incident, it failed to provide the resident with any further offer of support, including signposting to outside agencies and safeguarding advice. It also would have been useful for the landlord to have considered if it could provide any temporary security measures while it gathered more information about the incident and the perpetrator. The landlord’s lack of further support highlighted a lack of empathy towards the resident.
The action plan also failed to specify when the next communication with the resident would occur. It would have been helpful for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations about communication by making sure he was aware of when to expect further contact from the landlord.
There is also no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident. While we understand the police had not taken any further action in relation to the issue, the resident had still been the victim of a bomb threat by the perpetrator. A risk assessment is an important step for the landlord to take in cases of ASB. Had it completed one, it could have considered if any further support was necessary or if it needed to provide any temporary security measures to help alleviate the concerns of the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord about the handling of the ASB on 16 November 2023. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident other than to say it had sent the report to its tenancy specialist team. In these situations, landlords need to have effective communication with residents to manage expectations. Instead, it left the resident unaware what action it intended to take going forward.
From the evidence provided, the next communication with the resident was on 9 January 2024. Given the serious nature of the ASB, this is not appropriate. While the resident had not reported any further incidents, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have updated the resident about the action, if any, it had taken and to discuss with the resident if any further incidents had occurred or if he required further support. Its lack of communication was not in line with its ASB policy which said it would take a supportive approach when dealing with victims.
On 9 January 2024, the resident said that the perpetrator was staying inside the property, and it made him nervous as he was concerned the perpetrator may have been making bombs. Given the resident’s perceived risk and obvious distress at the situation, this would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have considered signposting the resident to support services and to have considered if it could have provided any temporary measures to help alleviate his concerns.
While the resident had no evidence the perpetrator was making bombs, given the previous threats made and the nature of the substances found in the property, the landlord could have considered liaising with the police to see if they would undertake a further visit to the property. Or, it could have explained to the resident why it would not act on his concerns and link that to a policy. To take no action in relation to the concerns suggested a lack of empathy towards the resident and his family.
On 23 January 2024, the landlord arranged a home visit to the perpetrator, which the perpetrator then cancelled. While undertaking a visit was a reasonable step for it to take in the handling of the ASB, it is not appropriate that it only did so 2 months after the incident had occurred. Its delay to discuss the issue with the perpetrator was unsatisfactory and highlighted a lack of effective handling of the ASB in this instance.
After the failed visit, the landlord issued a warning letter to the perpetrator. Again, while this was a reasonable step for it to take, it is unclear why the landlord did this over 2 months after the incident.
The landlord informed the resident on 9 February 2024 that due to no further incidents occurring, it had closed the ASB case. Given it had received no further reports of ASB it was reasonable of the landlord to close the case in this instance in line with its antisocial behaviour policy.
However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord reached out to the resident to understand if the ASB had in fact stopped or if he had just stopped reporting incidents. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored this with the resident prior to making any decision to not pursue the matter further.
The resident reported a further incident to the landlord on 14 August 2024 whereby the perpetrator spoke about spilling acid inside their own property which had caused burns. The landlord appropriately opened a new ASB case.
On the 15 August 2024, the landlord completed a police disclosure request. Furthermore, it completed safeguarding referrals and referred the case to its Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (CMARAC). All these actions were in line with its ASB policy and appropriate steps to take following the reporting of an ASB incident.
On that date the landlord also completed a risk assessment and created an action plan with the resident, including giving information on when it would next update the resident. The landlord’s swift action in this case was appropriate and its response was in line with its policy which says it would respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days. Its action plan provided the resident with clear expectations of the action it was going to take and managed his expectations around communication.
The landlord then spoke to the resident on 20 August 2024 to discuss his complaint. During that call, the resident expressed concerns that the landlord had opened a new case and therefore would not consider the wider history of ASB. While it was in line with the landlord’s policy for it to open a new case, it would have been useful for the landlord to reassure the resident it was aware of the previous incident and that opening a new case would not cause a detriment. Its lack of explanation caused distress to the resident who thought the landlord had failed to consider the wider context.
The evidence shows that the landlord also completed a home visit to the perpetrator to discuss the reports of ASB. Unfortunately, the visit was unsuccessful due to the perpetrator’s behaviour. However, it appropriately reached out to the police to ask for it to consider completing a further visit to the perpetrator and to understand if the police had any ongoing concerns.
On 21 August 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to highlight the actions it had taken since completing the action plan. The actions included liaising with the police and mental health support. Its further update to the resident was helpful and would have provided assurance that it was taking the incident seriously.
It also helpfully confirmed that it would contact the resident again on 5 September 2024 to manage his expectations around communication.
The resident contacted the warden’s duty line on 25 August 2024 in which he mentioned the November incident and said he felt the landlord had taken no action since the latest incident. The warden returned the call on 27 August 2025. While the warden was unable to provide an update to the resident on the specifics of the case at the time, it did give the resident appropriate advice about reporting further incidents and calling the police in an emergency.
During that call, the resident said he had evidence to send to the landlord about further incidents and issues. The landlord appropriately asked that the resident send the evidence in so it could consider that as part of its ongoing investigation.
The landlord followed that call up with an email on 28 September 2024 to further reiterate that it would provide another update following the CMARAC meeting on 5 September 2024. Its communication following the incident was effective, it kept the resident updated and managed his expectations appropriately.
It also confirmed that the police had attended the perpetrator’s property and had raised no concerns. However, it is important to note that the resident had previously been the victim of a bomb threat by this perpetrator and while the latest incident was not directed at the resident, the resident still felt at risk. While it was reasonable of the landlord to reassure the resident that the police had no concerns, whether the risk to the resident was real or perceived the landlord’s response lacked empathy.
Following the CMARAC meeting on 5 September 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident the following day to explain it was closing the case. It set out the actions it had taken following the incident which led to its decision to close the case without taking further action, in line with its policy. The Ombudsman understands that closing the case may not have been the outcome the resident wanted. However the landlord followed its ASB policy, and the evidence suggested it acted fairly, and its response was proportionate to the issues raised.
However, as with the incident in November there is no evidence that the landlord reached out to the resident to confirm if it was correct that no further incidents had occurred or if the resident had just not reported any. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored this with the resident prior to making any decision to not pursue the matter further.
In that response, the landlord also responded to the resident’s request for a house move. It was appropriate of the landlord to explain why he did not meet the criteria for a move and to link that to a policy. Furthermore, it provided advice to the resident on the options he did have with regards to a move and signposted him to the relevant services.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 20 September 2024, it said that the substance found during the first ASB incident was legal and therefore there was no crime in the perpetrator having the substance. The resident said he found this “insulting.” While the landlord was stating a fact, its response lacked empathy especially given the perpetrator had made threats to use the substance against the resident in November. The landlord needs to carefully consider the language it uses to balance facts with empathy in such sensitive situations.
In the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage 2, on 11 October 2024, he said that the perpetrator had continued to harass him and others in the building. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to those concerns aside from acknowledging his request for stage 2 of the complaints process. Given the further reports of ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to discuss this further to understand if it needed to take any further action.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 November 2024 during which time the resident said the issues with the perpetrator had been ongoing for a year and that the perpetrator came out in the night to do the “things he does”. The evidence shows that following this the resident liaison officer arranged for its wardens to undertake regular visits to the block. This decision to arrange for warden visits was a reasonable response given the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had not received any reports of ASB since the incident in August 2024. However, while the resident may not have sent formal reports, the evidence shows that he described ongoing harassment in his complaint escalation request and reported ongoing issues on 14 November 2024 and 25 November 2024. The landlord’s claim that no incidents had occurred points to poor communication between its internal teams and a lack of effective record keeping. The landlord must ensure it logs all ASB reports, and it investigates such reports to understand if further action was necessary.
In his complaint, the resident said he was unhappy that the landlord had not involved him in the CMARAC. The landlord helpfully explained that it was a conference of professional bodies and therefore, it would not be appropriate to involve the resident. This response was reasonable; however, it may have been useful for the landlord to have explained the CMARAC to the resident when it first made the referral to help him understand the nature of it and its purpose to manage expectations. It should consider any learning it can take from this point going forward.
The resident also provided evidence to the landlord of a complaint he made against the police with regards to its handling of the first ASB incident, which was upheld. The resident asked that the landlord reevaluate its handling of that incident based on the police complaint. The landlord appropriately responded and explained that the police complaint was separate to its handling of the incident and therefore had no impact on its handling. This response was reasonable. The police handling of the issue had no baring on the landlord’s handling of the case, and it was entitled to conclude that it did not need to review its own handling of the situation.
In this case, the landlord followed its policy in that it opened an ASB case following each incident, it completed an action plan and liaised with third party agencies. During the first incident, it would have also been appropriate to have evidenced that it completed a risk assessment for the resident and considered what more it could do to support him during what was clearly a distressing time. Following the second incident, the landlord followed its policy; However, it again failed to show that it considered what further support it could have offered the resident. Its communication improved during its handling of the second incident, and it managed the residents’ expectations well. However, it did not log the further incidents reported. Throughout both incidents, the landlord did not fully grasp the impact the situation had on the resident and his family. Its responses at times lacked empathy towards the resident’s perceived risk.
As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
A compensation has been made for £400, made up of the following:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience.
2. £200 for the time and trouble.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 August 2024, which the landlord acknowledged within 5 working days on 20 August 2024. This was in line with its policy.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024; 17 days after the response was due. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it communicated the delay to the resident in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code sets out that the landlord must communicate to the resident any delay at stage 1 beyond 10 working days. Doing so would enable it to manage the resident’s expectations.
However, the landlord apologised for the delay in its response and offered the resident £50 to reflect the failing. While no delay is satisfactory, its acceptance and offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 20 August 2024, the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss his formal complaint. During that call, the resident raised concerns about an earlier discussion with his tenancy support officer. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about this conversation in its formal response. This is not appropriate, landlord’s need to ensure they address all elements of the complaint in its response in line with the Code.
Its failure to do so, caused the resident to raise this as part of his stage 2 escalation request. The landlord appropriately apologised for its oversight in not addressing the all the residents’ concerns. In doing so it offered the resident £100 to reflect the incomplete stage 1 response, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 11 October 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on 22 October 2024. While this was 2 days outside of its published timescale, there was no detriment to the resident in the delay.
On 21 November 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to say it needed an extension and that it would provide its response by 17 December 2024. This was 2 days after the stage 2 response was due. The Code sets out that where the landlord needs further time to respond, it must communicate that to the resident before the response was due. While it was appropriate of the landlord to explain the delay to the resident, the landlord needs to ensure it does so prior to the response due date.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2024, therefore before the date it had set out in its extension email. Furthermore, it accepted and apologised for the delay and in doing so offered the resident £50 to reflect the failing.
While the landlord’s complaint handling fell below the standard we expect, it apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £200 to reflect its failings. It has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right.
As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Determination

Under paragraph 52 of the scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Under paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £400.
The resident reports that the ASB is still ongoing. Therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss his ongoing concerns, consider if it needs to open a new ASB case, if it has not already done so and set out to the resident and us the actions it intends to take to resolve the situation for the resident.

Recommendations

As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation in its complaint handling, the landlord should pay the resident the £200 it offered if it has not already done so.