Clarion Housing Association Limited (202521255)

Background

1. The resident reported issues with bed bugs in her flat. She also raised several issues about the conduct of the landlord and about a member of its staff. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaints. She is seeking compensation for distress and inconvenience caused to her.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The landlord’s letter that her visitor had caused antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s decision to place a risk marker on the resident’s record.
   3. A bed bug infestation in her flat.
   4. The conduct of a member of its staff.
   5. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s letter that her visitor had caused antisocial behaviour (ASB) is outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated it.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s decision to place a risk marker on the resident’s record is outside our jurisdiction and we have not investigated it.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation in her flat.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the conduct of a member its staff.
   5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a letter that the resident’s visitor had caused antisocial behaviour

4. We have not investigated this complaint because the resident had not raised this issue to the landlord as a formal complaint. We may not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

The landlord’s decision to place a risk marker on the resident’s record

5. We have not investigated this complaint because the resident had been referred to its appeals process. She has also not exhausted the landlord’s formal complaint procedure. We may not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

The landlord’s handling of a bed bug infestation in her flat

6. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about a bed bug infestation in her flat in line with its policy and procedures. Its overall investigation was proportionate, and its communication was appropriate given regard to all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the conduct of a member of its staff

7. The landlord failed to carry out a proportionate investigation into the conduct of a member of its staff. Its complaint responses failed to address the resident’s allegation that a member of its staff put their hands upon her. It has not provided a proportionate remedy to recognise the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident.

Complaint handling

8. There were delays in the landlord sending its complaint responses to the resident. It has not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact its errors 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.

9. In February 2025, the resident was unhappy the landlord sent her a warning letter regarding a breach of tenancy. She asked it to remove it. This related to an accusation that the resident’s visitor was rude to staff and had invaded her neighbours privacy.
10. We may not consider complaints which in our opinion, the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint about its handling of issuing the warning letter.
11. The resident can raise a separate complaint to the landlord if she wants to pursue this. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, she may be able to refer it to our service for a separate investigation at that stage.

12. In September 2025, the landlord told the resident it placed a risk marker on its records management system that restricted her access to its office. The resident appealed the landlord’s decision about this issue. We do not know the outcome of this appeal.
13. It was reasonable for the landlord to not address this in its final complaint response in October 2025. This is because it had referred the resident to its appeals process.
14. We may not consider complaints which in our opinion, the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of its decision after her appeal, she can raise a separate complaint about this.
15. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response, she may be able to refer it to our service for a separate investigation at that stage.

What we have not investigated

16. The resident has told us her health has suffered as a result of the landlord’s handling of the bed bug infestation in her flat. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last.
17. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

18. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for preventing and eradicating pests including bed bugs within her flat.
19. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy says:
    1. It will not usually take responsibility for bed bugs in resident’s homes.
    2. Where pests are the resident’s responsibility it will give advice on the action to take.
    3. It will eradicate any infestations in its communal areas.
20. In January 2025 the landlord wrote to all residents in the building advising them it identified a case of bed bugs in their building. The landlord’s initial response to this issue was positive where it communicated to the resident that:
    1. It was monitoring the infestation closely throughout the building.
    2. Its pest contractor had carried out a treatment of the impacted areas.
    3. Gave advice about how to deal with bed bugs.
    4. If any new cases were identified its own pest contractor would complete any required treatment at no cost to the residents.
21. The resident told the landlord there were bed bugs in her flat, as well as the communal laundry room. She also said she had been bitten.

22. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns on 28 January 2025. It arranged for its pest contractor to inspect the areas reported by the resident for pest related activity. The contractor found no evidence of bed bugs in these areas. It also left traps in each room of the resident’s flat so it could continue to monitor for any activity.
23. The contractor also asked to see the resident’s bites so it could see if they were likely to be from any bed bugs. The resident said she did not have any bites at that time.
24. On 30 January 2025, the resident said she was unhappy with the pest contractor’s inspection. She said the contractor did not listen to her and had not done enough to get rid of the bed bugs.
25. It was positive the landlord visited the resident the next day. The landlord said its pest contractor had been patient during its inspection. Whilst at the address, its contractor inspected her clothes and slippers just as she had requested. The contractor had also made a number of attempts to reassure her there were no bed bugs in her flat.
26. We acknowledge the resident does not agree that there were no bed bugs in her flat. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its specialist contractors and so its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
27. In February 2025, the landlord carried out further positive actions including that it:
    1. Shared that it was treating evidence of bed bugs in her neighbour’s flat.
    2. Agreed to carry out a precautionary treatment of the resident’s flat.
    3. Monitored and replaced the traps in the resident’s flat.
28. The landlord also arranged for the local environmental health team to inspect the resident’s flat. This was to check its pest contractor had not missed anything. The environmental health team confirmed they also found no evidence of pest activity in the resident’s flat. The landlord communicated this to the resident. It also said she could instruct her own pest contractor if she remained unhappy with its findings.
29. The landlord responded appropriately in its handling of this issue between March 2025 and its final complaint response, in October 2025. This included that:
    1. Its pest contractor completed monthly monitoring of its traps set within the building.
    2. Completed a treatment of bed bugs found in a neighbour’s flat in June 2025.
    3. Sealed the communal lounge and treated it for bed bugs in August 2025.
    4. Told the resident it could not fumigate her flat as there was no evidence of activity.
    5. Advised the resident to see her GP when she said she had been bitten.
30. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a bed bug infestation was proportionate. It recognised the importance of working beyond its pest and wildlife policy in the interest of eradicating the issue for all of its residents. Its pest contractor’s investigation was also consistent and targeted over a significant period. Its communication about this issue was also reasonable in the circumstances.

31. On 28 January 2025, a member of the landlord’s staff visited the resident at her flat. This visit related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a bed bug infestation in her flat. The resident said that the member of staff placed their hands on her and said, “I am worried about your mental health.” We acknowledge the resident has said this caused her distress and that she does not suffer with poor mental health.
32. The landlord’s safeguarding policy says it will complete safeguarding referrals to help resident’s access the right support, reduce risk, and promote wellbeing. It does not always require consent of the resident if it is to prevent risk or harm to their wellbeing.
33. The landlord’s member of staff completed its safeguarding investigation referral form. The member of staff said they did this because they were concerned about the resident’s mental health. Whilst the resident disagrees with the staff members observation, the referral was reasonable. This is because the referral was raised to the resident’s GP who is better equipped than the landlord to assess whether the resident needed any support.
34. It would not be reasonable or professional for a member of staff to put their hands on a resident in such circumstances. However, where there is a lack of independent evidence to support what happened, we as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s report.
35. In the landlord’s complaint responses it was reasonable that it explained its member of staff was obligated to submit the safeguarding referral. It was also appropriate when the landlord said it had spoken to its members of staff as part of its investigation.

36. However, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address its investigation into its member of staff putting their hands on the resident. It said it acted in line with its policies and procedures but did not refer to which ones or in what way. Its failure to address this specific issue caused the resident frustration. This was because she felt the landlord was not listening to her or taking her concerns about being touched by its staff seriously.
37. The landlord should have carried out a proportionate investigation into the incident. This should have included:
    1. Taking an account from the resident about what happened.
    2. Interviewing the member of staff about the allegation into their conduct.
    3. Identifying and speaking to any witnesses who may have been present.
38. The landlord should then have clearly communicated the findings of its investigation to the resident. It would have been reasonable for this to have included its member of staff’s response to the resident’s allegation, and the lines of enquiry it considered. It is outside our remit to comment on any disciplinary matters and therefore we will not comment on any action the landlord may or may not take against its staff.
39. It was positive the landlord offered mediation in its final response for the resident and its members of staff. It said this was to improve communications. Whilst we will not comment on the resident’s response, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer it.
40. The landlord failed to complete a proportionate investigation into the resident’s allegation that a member of its staff put their hands on her. This behaviour would not be considered acceptable. The landlord’s failure to address this part of the resident’s complaint caused her distress and inconvenience. The landlord also missed the opportunity to learn any lessons from the outcome of its investigation.
41. Our compensation guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. This situation applies and we have ordered compensation in line with this guidance. This recognises the failings in the landlord’s investigation which resulted the resident being caused distress and inconvenience.
42. We have not ordered the landlord to investigate this issue now. This is because the incident is 17 months old. As such events become historic it can become more difficult for the landlord to assess what happened. Therefore, it would no longer be proportionate.

43. The landlord’s complaints policy timescales comply with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling.
44. The resident sent her complaints by letter on 26 February 2025. The landlord received the letter on 11 March 2025. It was entitled to respond to the resident’s different complaints at stage 1 separately. The first stage 1 complaint response was sent within the timescales set out in the Code. However, the other was sent 6 working days late.
45. The landlord sent its final response to the resident’s complaint 112 working days later. This was a significant delay during which the resident chased for the landlord to respond. She was caused distress and inconvenience as she was waiting longer than she should have been for a response to her concerns.
46. Our compensation guidance suggests awards of up to £250 where the landlord’s complaint response was delayed by weeks or months. This is because it affects the timely resolution of the resident’s complaint.
47. To put right the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures, we have ordered compensation in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

48. The landlord’s records were sufficiently detailed to allow us to investigate the complaint.

Communication

49. The landlord’s communication in its handling of the bed bug infestation was positive. However, it failed to respond clearly to the resident about the conduct of a member of its staff. This left the resident chasing the landlord whilst she was left frustrated and dissatisfied. This could have been avoided if the landlord had responded to her concerns.