Clarion Housing Association Limited (202103528)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103528

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 January 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by her neighbour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat under an assured tenancy.
  2. The resident previously raised a complaint with the Ombudsman in relation to the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise nuisance in 2018. This was determined under complaint reference 201808596. The matters considered as part of that complaint will not be reinvestigated as part of the current complaint, which is concerned with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from April 2020 onwards.

Summary of events

  1. In April 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had been experiencing ASB and harassment by her neighbour. The resident reported that on 19 April 2020 police had attended the building to investigate an incident and her neighbour had informed those under investigation that the resident had called the police, which was untrue. The resident stated that she was fearful that as a result of her neighbour’s actions she would be targeted, as one of the individuals involved, lived in the building. The resident requested the landlord’s assistance.
  2. On 22 April 2020, the landlord’s Tenancy Specialist emailed the resident to confirm that she was happy for noise recording equipment to be installed, as recommended in the Ombudsman’s previous determination once restrictions imposed as a result of Covid–19 were lifted. The landlord acknowledged the incident on 19 April 2020 and that the resident had reported this to the police. The resident was advised to report any further incidents involving harassment to the police.
  3. The resident responded on 22 April 2020, reporting that the police had visited and advised her neighbour to stay away. The resident stated that she believed the landlord needed to take action in relation to the ongoing ASB and that the police had advised it was the landlord’s responsibility.
  4. On 5 and 24 July 2020 the landlord received further reports of ASB by email from the resident’s partner. The email of 24 July 2020 informed the landlord of an ‘unacceptable’ level of noise from the property above, which included children running around for long periods, sometimes after 11pm. The resident had spoken to her neighbour about the issues, but the behaviour had not changed. The email also raised concerns about insufficient insulation between the properties, which the resident and her partner felt was exacerbating the issues. The resident asked that the landlord insist that the neighbour install thick carpets. The resident queried why the landlord had permitted the installation of wood flooring in the property above and asked that it consider improving the sound insulation.
  5. The resident’s partner emailed the landlord again on 31 July 2020, stating that he had not had a response to his previous emails. A further, undated email was sent chasing a response.
  6. It is unclear whether a formal complaint was made and logged at this time, but it does not appear that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns until 2 September 2020, when it emailed to request the address of the property and that of the resident’s neighbour. The landlord stated that it would refer the issues surrounding wooden flooring to its Customer Support Team. This information was provided on 5 September 2020.
  7. On 24 September 2020 the resident’s partner emailed the landlord chasing a response. He reported that they continued to be affected by noise, including children running, items being dropped, furniture scraping, shouted conversations after midnight and the sound of mobile phones vibrating. The resident stated that this evidenced a lack of insulation and that the use of hard wood flooring did not sufficiently protect other resident’s from being affected by noise transference.
  8. On 5 November 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that they were unable to find its complaints form. They asked that the landlord nominate a complaints officer to respond to the concerns detailed in the email of 24 July 2020. The email noted that the resident had received no contact at all.
  9. A formal complaint was opened, and the landlord sent an acknowledgment email to the resident on 9 November 2020.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 30 November 2020. It confirmed that two ASB cases had been logged about noise from the resident’s neighbour in April 2020. The landlord had interviewed the resident on 4 May 2020 and agreed an action plan. The alleged perpetrator was interviewed the same day and counter-allegations were made. On the basis that there was insufficient evidence from either party to take further action, the resident was advised to avoid contacting her neighbour and to report further incidents. The case was then closed. In the stage 1 response the landlord repeated its advice to inform the police of any harassment and stated that if the police took any criminal action, it would ‘consider what appropriate legal or non-legal interventions can be undertaken’.
  11. The stage 1 response noted the resident’s comments that the ASB was ongoing but stated that there was presently no ASB case being investigated. It advised that reports of noise nuisance were investigated by the Neighbourhood Response Team. The landlord noted that there were 23 active enquiries logged under the resident’s housing file, but it was unable to locate an enquiry relating to noise nuisance. The landlord had therefore opened a new case. The landlord concluded that the correct process had been followed and that there was no service failure.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 1 January 2021, requesting the escalation of the complaint, as it had not addressed the concerns raised. The email noted that the complaint of 24 July 2020 was ‘completely separate’ to the historic complaints made about ASB. The resident noted that the reason for the complaint was that the landlord had failed to open an ASB case in response to the recent reports. This was not acknowledged in the complaint response. The resident was concerned that despite previous warnings being sent to the neighbour, the issues continued. In addition, the resident reiterated the question why the neighbour had been allowed to install hard wood flooring.
  13. The complaint escalation was acknowledged by the landlord on 4 January 2021. The resident was later informed that due to higher than usual case numbers the response would be delayed. The landlord’s notes indicate that the complaint was then re-raised as a ‘peer review’ on 20 January 2021. The resident was given further updates on 25 January 2021 and 2 March 2021.
  14. The landlord provided a final response to the resident on 11 March 2021. It noted that it had attempted to telephone the resident on 5 and 10 March 2021 to discuss her outstanding concerns. The landlord apologised for the delay in providing a response. The response stated:
    1. That the landlord was sorry the resident had had to chase a response to her reports of ASB. It also acknowledged that she felt the stage 1 response of 30 November 2020 had not addressed her principal concern, which was the landlord’s lack of action and poor communication. The landlord had contacted the Customer Solutions Manager and recommended that they review the stage 1 response and discuss how to improve the complaint team’s processes to ensure a full response was provided.
    2. The landlord acknowledged that the stage 1 response had failed to reference the resident’s reports of ASB in July and September 2020, instead focussing on the ASB case investigated in April/May 2020.
    3. Following closure of the stage 1 complaint the landlord had contacted the resident on 4 December 2020 to discuss its plans to install noise monitoring equipment following the previous investigation in April/May 2020.
    4. A new ASB incident was logged on 7 January 2021 and an officer was asked to complete an action plan and to contact the resident on 14 January 2021. This did not happen. A member of staff then contacted the resident on 4 February 2021. The landlord logged the report of noise from the wooden flooring on its system on 11 February 2021.
    5. The landlord agreed that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB could have been improved by logging an ASB case in July 2020, adequately responding to the stage 1 complaint, investigating the ASB following the stage 1 response, considering other options for dealing with the noise nuisance, and investigating the resident’s concerns about wooden flooring at an earlier stage.
    6. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and stated that once it was able to re-enter properties when restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic were lifted, it would be in touch about installing noise recording equipment.
    7. The landlord had written to the resident on 23 February 2021 with details of next steps. The landlord explained the categories of ASB as defined in its ASB policy. The failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB had been followed up with the Neighbourhood Response Manager.
    8. The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation, made up of £200 compensation for repeated failures to reply to the resident’s communications in a timely manner and £200 for failure to meet its service standards for responding to reports of ASB.
  15. The complaint was referred to the Ombudsman by the resident’s MP on 12 May 2021. On 21 May 2021 the landlord offered to install noise recording equipment at the property, which it subsequently did. The Ombudsman understands that the resident reports the noise nuisance issues are ongoing, although the landlord has closed its ASB case.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of ASB

  1. When considering complaints about ASB it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a determination on whether or not ASB has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman looks at whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
  2. In the present case the landlord has accepted that it failed to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s reports of ASB in July and September 2020, or to answer the query regarding the installation of hard wood flooring. There had also been further failings when a new case was opened in January 2021 in response to the complaint. The landlord had failed to follow-up when it said it would, though it did eventually contact the resident on 4 February 2020. The delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s concerns were wholly unreasonable and it is of concern that it repeated the service failure by failing to progress the ASB case following the formal complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Had the ASB case been progressed in line with the landlord’s policy, there would have been no cause for the complaint.
  4. In the final response the landlord acknowledged its failings with regards to how it handled the resident’s ASB concerns particularly with regards to logging the ASB case in July 2020 and taking the necessary action. The ASB reports have been followed up with the Neighbourhood Response Manager following the failings being identified.
  5. In recognition of its failings the landlord has compensated £200 for the repeated failures to reply to the resident’s communications and £200 for its failure to meet service standards in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. The compensation offered is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with the Services’ remedies guidance and as such, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate, as it failed to deal with the all the issues raised by the resident.
  2. During the landlord’s investigation into the complaint, it identified that the notes recorded on the system were ‘basic’. The Ombudsman is concerned at the landlord’s lack of record keeping and at the sparse nature of the information provided to this Service.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, however, the landlord has identified its failings within its final response and provided an apology to the resident. The landlord has offered the resident compensation as mentioned above and has also discussed the failings with its Customer Solutions Manager in order for the complaint process to be reviewed to ensure it improves on its complaint handling going forward. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman considers that landlord has offered redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has offered redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves her complaint about its complaints handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure it maintains accurate records in regard to ASB reports and its actions in response to them.