From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202311492)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311492

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Communication.
    2. Request for a reasonable adjustment.
    3. Concerns about his neighbourhood response officer.
    4. Repair requests and concerns regarding the condition of his property.
    5. Request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has dyslexia and prefers communication by telephone.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show it raised a job on 18 July 2022 to inspect cracks that run along the stairway and walls in the resident’s property. It said the resident had spoken to an independent surveyor who told him that the property had subsidence. It raised a repair again on 8 December 2022 which stated that the landing window was stuck and there were cracks across the landing and hallway.
  3. On 20 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that it had placed a risk alert on his records and added his name to its risk to staff register in line with its policy. It said it was following an email he sent to it which showed aggressive, unsuitable, and inappropriate behaviour to its employees.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2023. He said he was frustrated with the lack of response from the landlord regarding his requests to move. The resident said he was struggling with allegations made against him by neighbours and that he felt threatened. He said he had emailed approximately 9 times and no one had responded to him. The resident asked that someone read his emails and respond to him.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to his landlord via this Service on 29 June 2023. The complaint was regarding the time the landlord took to respond to his communication, which included reports regarding repairs, and the condition of his property. He said he had submitted 4,000 emails in the last 6 months. The resident also raised that he had requested the landlord to contact him by telephone only due to his dyslexia. He raised concerns about the level of support and attitude of his neighbourhood response officer (NRO). The resident said he had also requested a management transfer from the landlord.
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 7 August 2023 which stated the following:
    1. The contact centre team had received a total of 55 emails from him over the last 3 months. It said the emails all related to different enquiries. It noted that in July 2023 the resident addressed the number of emails he had sent and apologised for sending so many. The landlord confirmed there was a delay in responding to the resident’s emails and as such, it identified a service failure.
    2. The resident had advised a call handler in July 2023 that he was having difficulties completing forms due to his dyslexia. It said the call handler confirmed it was on file. It said it did not know why the staff member who sent the form did not make note of his request to call the resident before sending the form. It said it had identified a service failure for that.
    3. There were no open repairs for jobs in the resident’s property. It advised the resident how to raise a new repair. It said following the resident’s concerns about the general condition of his property, it had booked a home visit for mid-June 2023. It said the resident had cancelled that appointment.
    4. Its NROs were active in the areas should any estate based issues arise. It noted that the resident confirmed in an email in June 2023 that a specific NRO did not attend his property.
    5. The tenancy specialist team had been involved in his case. It said it provided the mental health helpline to him in April 2023 and made a referral to a food bank in May 2023. It said it raised a safeguarding alert April 2023 and it arranged a complex action group (CAG) meeting in early June 2023 to review all his concerns. It referred to non-engagement from the resident and verbal abuse. It outlined what action it was taking in response to the resident’s abuse.
    6. It said the resident’s most recent management transfer request was in July 2023. It said it called the resident on 7 July 2023 to carry out an interview and discuss an action plan but the resident became aggressive and ended the call. It said it sent a letter to the resident regarding the action he should take for his ASB concerns. It said it would speak to the police to see if they would support a management transfer.
    7. It awarded £100 in compensation. £50 was for the failure to follow the resident’s request to receive communication by phone and £50 was for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 September 2023. He said he declined the compensation offered but no one had responded to him. He said he was seeking a bigger offer of compensation and if the landlord did not respond within 5 days he would be going back to the Ombudsman.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 27 October 2023. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. It said:
    1. When the resident declined the offer of compensation on 14 August 2023 it closed the process as he said he was discussing the matter with its customer solutions team. It said it was unable to identify any further concerns raised prior to his stage 2 escalation but acknowledged that it did not follow up with the resident. It said that was a service failure.
    2. It outlined the action it had taken in relation to his ASB concerns and request to move. It confirmed that since August 2023 there had been no further reports of incidents from the resident and the risk had significantly reduced. It said as a result it would not be able to agree a management transfer. It outlined what action the resident needed to take should he want to report further issues.
    3. The landlord proposed an agreement to limit the resident’s emails to up to 3 a week or arrange a weekly or bi-weekly telephone call to discuss any new or ongoing issues.
    4. The landlord offered an additional £100 for the failure to follow up with the resident and the delay in providing the stage 2 response.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said he was suffering from stress, depression, and had tried to commit suicide on several occasions. He said this was due to him trying to deal with the landlord regarding the property. He said he had to take lots of time from work due to his mental health and had lost money due to that. He said he wanted the landlord to pay him £7,000 in compensation, to resolve the issues, to move him, and housing staff to be more visible in the area and help residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s communication

  1. In his formal complaint the resident stated that he had sent 4,000 emails to the landlord within the last 6 months. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it had received 55 emails within the last 3 months from the resident. It is unclear why the landlord only reviewed the previous 3 months. However, in correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord confirmed that the resident had contacted it in excess of 270 times within the 6 months the resident was referring to.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge in its complaint responses that there were delays in responding to the resident. It was also reasonable for it to highlight that there was a high volume of emails which could have impacted its ability to respond. It confirmed that the resident had recognised and apologised for that too.
  3. In its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by proposing that he limit his emails and/or agree a regular time for it to discuss any new or ongoing concerns with him. This showed the landlord had aimed to put right its failures and it showed learning by trying to find a solution which would work best for both parties.
  4. In its complaint responses, the landlord considered the content of some of the resident’s emails. It described the language as “foul and abusive.” It said it had placed the resident on its risk register and asked the resident to correspond with its staff in a respectful way. It outlined what action it had taken and would take if the behaviour continued.
  5. It was appropriate for the landlord to address the communication it had received from the resident. This was not only to ensure he understood the implications of such communication. But it would also have had an impact on the way in which the landlord could communicate with the resident and the possible delays in responding to him as a result. extensive. Therefore, it was fair for the landlord to consider what action it should take if it felt a resident was behaving inappropriately and presented a risk to its staff members.
  6. The landlord offered a total of £100 for its failures. The resident escalated his complaint because the landlord did not respond to his rejection of the stage 1 offer. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, apologised, and confirmed it was service failure. It offered £50 compensation for the lack of response to his email regarding the compensation offer. The amounts offered were reasonable and were in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  7. Overall, the landlord has shown that it had followed the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles in its handling of the resident’s complaint about its communication. It was fair in the way it acknowledged its service failures and in highlighting factors which may have impacted on its response times to the resident. It aimed to put things right by offering compensation which was in line with its policy. And it showed a commitment to learning from the complaint by offering an agreed method of communication to help manage his expectations going forward.
  8. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s communication.

The resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment

  1. On 24 April 2023, the landlord noted that the resident was diagnosed with dyslexia. It said he requested telephone contact but was happy to have both calls and emails.
  2. The landlord did not dispute in its stage 1 response that there was a service failure in the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment. It noted that it had recorded the resident’s request on his file, which was in line with its policy. It said it was unsure why the resident was then sent a form without a phone call to discuss it with him first. It awarded £50 to put right its failure to follow its processes and for any inconvenience suffered to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy for failing to have “regard to a complainant’s preferred method of contact or contact requirements.” The policy recommended compensation of £50 per quarter per failure. The landlord could have considered any further learning it could take from the failure. However, as it had shown it had followed its processes and it appeared to be a case of human error, it is reasonable to consider that this was an exceptional occurrence.
  4. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a reasonable adjustment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbourhood response officer

  1. The landlord’s records show that on 13 September 2022, an NRO contacted the resident to complete a welfare call due to his mention of deteriorating mental health. The NRO spoke with the resident, they confirmed that they were happy with his wellbeing and there would be no further action. They provided an update on his current circumstances and that he did not want a referral to the sustainment team. They said the resident was not in any immediate risk but was frustrated at the time it was taking to receive compensation from a previous complaint. The NRO escalated it to their manager.
  2. The NRO’s initial response was reasonable. They called the resident on the same day the concerns were raised. They then recorded the information they had gathered to determine that no further action or support was required from them at the time.
  3. It is evident from the records that the resident had contact with various officers in different teams within the landlord. In its stage 1 response the landlord explained that it did not have traditional Housing Officers. It explained the NRO role, that the officers were field based, and dealt with estate based issues and estate inspections. It then outlined the action taken by its tenancy specialist team. We also note that as part of the risk alert placed on the resident’s file, it said staff should not visit the resident, and his emails should be re-directed to contact centre managers.
  4. It was reasonable for the landlord to outline the role of NROs to manage the resident’s expectations. It explained the involvement of the tenancy specialist team and what action had been taken to address his concerns. This included referrals related to the resident’s welfare and arranging a home visit to look at the condition of his property. It discussed his case at CAG meetings, of which the tenancy sustainment team, the tenancy specialist team, and housing teams attended. The landlord could have further outlined the terms of his risk restriction and why this would have also resulted in limited contact from his NRO. However, it showed how the appropriate teams were addressing the resident’s reports.
  5. On 29 April 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord. In his email he said he did not want his NRO to go near him as he would “go mad” at them, he said he hated them very much. He said his temper was out of control and not to blame him if “things go bad.” The landlord raised a safeguarding concern. On 5 June 2023, the resident stated again to keep his NRO away from him and his flat. On 27 June 2023, the landlord noted that it had arranged a home visit for 12 June 2023, with a different NRO, and a surveyor, but the resident had cancelled it.
  6. The resident’s formal complaint referred to the level of support and attitude of his NRO. However, the records have evidenced how the landlord put appropriate support and safeguards in place to manage the resident’s concerns and wellbeing. We have not seen evidence to support that any staff members had an attitude. We have however, seen from April 2023, that the resident said he did not want any contact from his NRO. His emails suggested that if the NRO did make contact with him then he may be threatening or violent towards them. It was therefore reasonable that the NRO would have limited contact with the resident.
  7. In a telephone call with the landlord on 17 August 2023 the resident stated that he had received so much help in the past 3 months and apologised for being impatient in the past.
  8. To conclude, the landlord has shown how it had attempted to support the resident and address his concerns. While the support was not always conducted by an NRO, the landlord appropriately explained the remits of that role, and what teams had engaged with him. The communication from the resident also showed the challenges faced by the landlord in the need to manage the risk to the NRO and their contact with him.
  9. As such, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his NRO.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and concerns regarding the condition of his property

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported cracks that run along the stairway and walls in his property on 18 July 2022. It noted that he had spoken with an independent surveyor who told him the property had subsidence. The repair status shows it was cancelled on 19 July 2022. There are no notes to explain why the landlord cancelled the repair and what the next steps would be. This was not appropriate and suggests that the landlord did not attend to the repair request in line with its policy.
  2. The resident reported the issue again on 17 December 2022, he also said that his landing window was stuck and that he could not open it. He raised issues with noises from his hot water pipe and a broken socket in his living room. There is no end date on the record for this repair, however, the notes stated that the landlord cancelled the repair on 30 December 2022. It said it cancelled the repair due to “email thread.” It did not specify what email thread it was referring to. Although, it is reasonable to assume that it was a result of the email sent from the resident which resulted in placing him on its risk to staff register.
  3. The emails received from the resident presented challenges in the way the landlord could respond to the resident. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not outline how it intended to address the repair reports in line with its policies and obligations. There is no evidence of it communicating with the resident regarding the repair or considering any action it could take to address the repair, in the circumstances. We have seen correspondence from the landlord in April 2023 which suggested a joint visit with the relevant teams, and possibly the police. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider this sooner.
  4. On 18 April 2023 the landlord noted that its repairs team had not been able to complete repairs as the resident was abusive, so they left the property. The Ombudsman has not seen any record of that visit or when it occurred. It is vital that landlord’s keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand its actions and decision making at the time. In the absence of this information, we cannot determine that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  5. The resident raised further issues with his property in April 2023 and the landlord arranged a joint visit to inspect the property. The resident refused repairs from May 2023 onwards. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident confirmed that he continued to refuse repairs in his property until 1 August 2024. He said the landlord has since agreed to complete all outstanding repairs by 11 September 2025.
  6. In its stage 1 response the landlord said there were no open repairs for the resident’s property and that the resident should raise a new repair. While the resident had refused visits from 15 May 2023 onwards, the landlord did not account for the delay in attending to his reports prior to that. This was a failing.
  7. The landlord appropriately outlined in its stage 2 response that the resident cancelled the more recent appointments made to inspect the property. It said it could offer to re-arrange a visit to talk through any repairs which he needed doing. The landlord’s response was reasonable given the lack of access provided to the resident’s property at the time.
  8. To conclude, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for repairs and concerns for the condition of the property. There were clearly challenges for the landlord in arranging to inspect the resident’s property. However, the landlord failed to account for the time taken from July 2022 to December 2022 in which it did not appear to respond to the resident’s repair request. It also failed to show what steps it would take to address the resident’s repair reports following its decision to add the resident to its risk register in December 2022. This unreasonably delayed the repairs and likely led to a loss of confidence from the resident.
  9. To put right the service failure identified, the landlord must pay the resident £250. This is in line with its compensation policy for “failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with its policy,” which includes responding to repairs. It must also confirm if any repairs are outstanding and if so, what action it is taking to ensure they are completed in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. In a telephone call on 16 March 2023, the landlord noted that the resident was frustrated with its lack of response regarding his request to be moved. It said he was struggling with allegations made against him by other neighbours and felt threatened. It said he requested someone respond as soon as possible before he dropped the call.
  2. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have noted what action it would take in relation to the resident’s reports. Although, we do know that it referred the resident to the tenancy sustainment team to address all his concerns, including his housing options. The team contacted the resident on 3 April 2023.
  3. On 18 April 2023, the landlord noted that the resident was stating that it was unsafe for him to reside at his address. It said it could not see any complaints as to why but it had contacted the tenancy specialist team regarding any reports of ASB and to enquire if the police had any information.
  4. On 15 May 2023 the landlord confirmed that it had no reports of ASB recorded for the resident. It told him he should report concerns or incidents to the police and its contact centre. It noted that the resident said he would not do that as both the police and the landlord would not do anything. The landlord advised that in order to help him he would need to make a report so it had evidence of it happening. It advised the resident that it could not move him and it needed to follow its procedure.
  5. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s requests to move were reasonable. In line with its management transfer policy, it would need to see evidence of the resident experiencing ASB that put him at risk of serious harm and receive police confirmation of that. It checked with the appropriate team to see if the resident had made any reports of ASB to the landlord or the police. It then provided advice for how he could make reports to allow it to follow its policy. It was reasonable for it to say that it could not move him as he had not met the criteria.
  6. On 1 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. He asked it to tell other residents to stop talking outside his front door or he would hurt them. He referred to allegations people were saying about him. He said the landlord had done nothing about the people outside his flat in the early hours and he would “hurt you all if need be.” He asked the landlord to move him or he would kill himself or hurt someone. In an internal email on 3 July 2023 the landlord said it would open a case for his allegations against his neighbours. The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 July 2023 to agree an action plan, it noted he was very abusive and hung up. It said it would send him a warning letter and keep his ASB case about his neighbour open.
  7. The landlord’s actions were reasonable. It showed an attempt to discuss his concerns, and addressed the reports of ASB, which at that stage would not have met the criteria for a management transfer.
  8. In its stage 1 response the landlord reasonably outlined the action it had taken in relation to the reported ASB and management transfer request. It explained how it had liaised with the relevant team and was awaiting information from the police. It said it could not offer a transfer unless the police confirmed he was at significant risk of harm.
  9. In its stage 2 response it confirmed it had liaised with both the police and the community mental health team (CMHT). It said it had received a letter of letter of support from the CMHT about the impact on his mental health, which enabled it to actively consider a management transfer. It outlined what action it had taken with the neighbour and said it had not received any further reports so the risk to the resident was significantly reduced. It said it would not be able to agree a management transfer. It noted the resident had made a recent report about the neighbour which it was investigating and would reconsider if a management transfer was possible. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policy.
  10. Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer. The landlord evidenced how it had considered the request and followed its policy to reach the decisions made. It evidenced its attempts to communicate further with the resident and to gather supporting information from the relevant third parties. Its stage 2 response outlined what steps it was taking in relation to more recent reports and other options he could explore such as a mutual exchange. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident has confirmed that while he would still like to move, he is no longer experiencing ASB from his neighbour.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Communication.
    2. Request for a reasonable adjustment.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about his neighbourhood response officer.
    2. Request for a management transfer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests and concerns regarding the condition of his property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must pay the resident £250 in compensation for its delays in responding to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. The landlord must confirm what repairs are outstanding in the resident’s property, if any, and the timeframe in which it intends to complete the repairs.
  3. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £200 compensation it offered to the resident at stage 2.