Clarion Housing Association Limited (202315824)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202315824 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Clarion Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
25 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a ground-floor flat in a communal block with his brother. He has complained about excessive noise from the flat above. The landlord is aware of vulnerabilities within the household.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of noise nuisance.
- Associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found that there was:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
- Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Noise nuisance
- The landlord did not consider the full range of interventions available to it during its handling of the case. It did not give appropriate consideration to the impact of the situation on the resident even though it was aware of extenuating circumstances and it failed to provide him with sufficient updates, leaving him without clarity on the action it intended to take. The landlord also delayed telling the resident that it had concluded the case and what the outcome was. Poor record keeping further contributed to the landlord’s failures.
Complaint handling
- The landlord did not identify service failings which had occurred in its handling of the resident’s noise reports, despite available evidence. Its complaint responses also did not address the health concerns the resident raised.
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:
|
No later than 22 April 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500, made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. |
No later than 22 April 2026 |
|
3 |
Noise nuisance concerns order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the ongoing noise issues he has reported. By the due date, the landlord should also provide a clear action plan to both us and the resident, setting out the steps it intends to take to support him in line with its policies and procedures, including the good neighbour policy now in place. |
No later than 22 April 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
December 2022 |
The resident reported noise from the neighbour in the flat above to the landlord. He said the noise had been ongoing since 2020, when his brother had spoken to the neighbour, but this had not resolved the issue. |
|
13 October 2023 |
The resident complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord’s handling of his noise reports. He said the landlord’s investigation and response had left him dissatisfied. He also explained that the ongoing noise issues were affecting his brother, who has mental health difficulties, and he felt the landlord had not taken this into account. |
|
23 October 2023 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that it had followed the correct process when investigating the resident’s noise reports and had not identified any service failings in its actions. It advised the resident that the reported noise did not meet its antisocial behaviour (ASB) threshold and, for that reason, it could not take further action. However, it acknowledged a delay in concluding its investigation and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It offered £100 in compensation in recognition of these delays. |
|
30 January 2024 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said the stage 1 response and the landlord’s £100 offer did not reflect the ongoing disturbance that he and his brother were experiencing daily. He explained that he had spent considerable time compiling the noise diary and recordings and felt the landlord had not listened to them using appropriate equipment. He said he believed the landlord was not making “any effort” to consider his complaint. He also reiterated his concerns about the impact of the noise on his brother’s mental health. |
|
29 February 2024 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It stated that the stage 1 outcome was fair and reasonable. It explained that noise must reach a certain threshold for it to be treated as ASB and advised that 2 separate officers had reviewed the resident’s recordings, both concluding that the noise did not meet the threshold to be considered a nuisance. It said it was unable to justify any further award of compensation. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate, as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said the landlord had shown no “real serious intention” to investigate his case and that it had reached a “hasty conclusion.” He also stated that the landlord had not considered the impact of the noise on his brother’s mental health. |
|
5 March 2026 |
During his contact with us, the resident said the situation remained unchanged and that the landlord “refuse to do anything”. As an outcome, he said he would like the landlord to take action against his neighbours, as he believed they were causing a nuisance. He also said he wanted the landlord to take the evidence he originally provided more seriously. |
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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not investigated
- Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that he had been reporting noise nuisance since November 2020. He raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports in October 2023. We have not seen evidence he was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. In the interests of fairness, this investigation will focus on events from October 2022 onwards, covering the 12-month period prior to the complaint being raised.
What we have investigated
- The resident told us that his desired outcome is for the landlord to take robust action in response to his reports of noise nuisance. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to require a landlord to take legal action or otherwise against its tenants or to establish whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. Our role is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and determine whether its response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
- On 21 December 2022, the resident reported noise nuisance involving screaming, thumping, and scraping noises from his neighbour. The landlord responded on 22 December 2022, requesting 2 weeks of diary sheets. This request was appropriate, as its ASB policy requires it to establish the frequency, severity, and duration of reported noise to assess whether it meets set thresholds for further investigation. However, the landlord did not open an ASB case at this point which was inconsistent with its policy requirement to record noise complaints.
- On 10 January 2023, the landlord told the resident it had spoken to his neighbour, who denied causing any excessive noise. It also said it could not hear any of the sounds the resident reported on the recordings he had sent and stressed the importance of completing the requested diary sheets, as the current evidence was not sufficient. The landlord also advised the resident to report the matter to environmental health. Although these were positive steps to investigate the reports, the landlord kept no notes or records of its conversation with the neighbour or its review of the recordings. As a result, we cannot verify how it reached its assessment at this stage, which suggests shortcomings in its record keeping practices.
- The police informed the landlord of external extenuating circumstances unrelated to this complaint on 9 February 2023. They said these circumstances, combined with the noise the resident had been reporting, were causing the resident and his brother significant stress and were having a serious impact on their wellbeing and mental health. A solicitor’s letter sent to the landlord on 10 March 2023 further supported this, showing the effect the situation was having on the resident and his brother’s daily lives.
- Between 7 March 2023 and 15 May 2023, the landlord took some reasonable steps, such as signposting the resident to use the noise app and liaising with other agencies, including environmental health and mental health teams. It also said it sought advice from its specialist in-house tenancy team, although gaps in its documentation mean we have seen no record of this. However, there is no evidence the landlord considered other interventions, such as mediation, neighbour corroboration, or the use of a professional witness, all of which are set out in its ASB policy and procedure. Given the landlord had said it did not have sufficient evidence—and was aware of the significant impact the situation was having on the resident and his brother’s wellbeing, as highlighted by the police—these would have been sensible options to consider. Alternatively, if it had considered and discounted them, it would have been good practice to document this. Its failure to do so was a missed opportunity to potentially resolve the matter sooner.
- During this period (7 March 2023 to 15 May 2023), the landlord did not maintain regular communication with the resident, which resulted in him having to chase updates on 4 occasions. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have kept him informed about the progress of his case. Not doing so likely caused the resident frustration and uncertainty.
- In his correspondence, the resident also referred to returning diary sheets on 1 April 2023. Although we have not seen evidence of these within the landlord’s records, the landlord told the resident on 28 April 2023 that it had received and reviewed the diary sheets but did not share the outcome of its review. After the time and effort the resident spent completing the diary sheets, it was unreasonable that he had to chase the landlord to confirm they had been received and to obtain a response. We have also seen no notes or records of the landlord’s review, which has prevented us from assessing the landlord’s actions and highlights further recordkeeping failures.
- In internal correspondence on 15 May 2023, the landlord’s neighbourhood response officer said it had investigated and closed the resident’s case as it did not meet the required threshold and asked the relevant team to issue a letter to the resident confirming the outcome. The officer referred to a visit made that day to the neighbour, confirming the flooring was appropriate, and said they had also attempted to visit the resident to conduct a noise test, but he was not in. However, the records show no evidence that the landlord had pre‑arranged this visit with the resident. The landlord should therefore have attempted to re‑arrange the visit before concluding its investigation. Not doing so meant it may have missed an opportunity to gather further evidence that could have helped inform its assessment.
- Despite noting in its internal records that it had closed the investigation, the landlord did not issue the letter to inform the resident. As a result, the resident had to chase the landlord on 3 occasions between 24 May 2023 and 7 July 2023. On 13 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that the noise he described did not meet its threshold and it had therefore closed the case. While the landlord was entitled to make its assessment in line with its policies and procedures, taking 2 months and requiring multiple prompts from the resident to communicate this was unreasonable. This added to his time and trouble and likely contributed to his decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
- The resident told us that the situation had affected his brother’s mental health. The landlord was aware of these concerns. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for him to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- At both stages of its complaints process, the landlord told the resident that the evidence available at the time of its investigation did not meet its threshold for opening an ASB case, and that it would not take enforcement action where there were no tenancy breaches or grounds for further intervention. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out its position on the reported noise, and we recognise that, aside from its ASB policy, it did not have a more suitable policy at the time to address this type of issue. However, it should still have explored what further steps it could take to reduce the impact of the noise and support the resident, particularly given the concerns he raised about its effect on his brother’s mental health and the extenuating circumstances of which the landlord was aware. Its failure to do so left the resident and his brother living with unresolved issues, which contributed to the resident’s distress.
- The landlord offered £100 in compensation during the complaints process. This does not adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this investigation. We consider an additional payment of £300 to be appropriate, which brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £400. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident and where the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation.
- During contact with us in March 2026, the resident said that the noise issues had remained unchanged, indicating that the matter was still unresolved. The landlord confirmed it had not received any recent noise reports from the resident. We have therefore made an order in relation to this.
- Since the events of this complaint, the landlord has introduced a new Good Neighbour Policy, published in October 2024. It said it developed this policy in response to our spotlight report on noise complaints, issued in October 2022. This is a positive step, as it should provide a more structured approach to managing reports that do not meet the landlord’s ASB threshold. For this reason, we have not considered it necessary to make any orders or recommendations requiring the landlord to make additional policy improvements in this area.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s complaint handling |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant version of the Code was published in March 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy differed from those in the Code because, at the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord was using an interim complaints policy following a cyber‑security incident.
- The interim policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 10 working days at both stages. At stage 1, it would issue a response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and at stage 2, within 40 working days. It was reasonable for the landlord to temporarily adjust its processes due to the impact of the cyber incident.
- The landlord adhered to the timescales outlined in its interim complaints policy. However, there were other failures. The landlord’s responses did not address the resident’s concerns about the impact of the situation on his brother’s mental health, despite these being raised at both complaint stages. As a result, the responses were not proportionate to the seriousness of these concerns and did not address all matters raised.
- The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to review its handling of the substantive issue. While it acknowledged delays, it did not identify other service failures that had occurred. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and shows a lack of thoroughness in its investigation. As a result, the landlord missed the opportunity to remedy the substantive issue and rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship, failing to use its complaints process as an effective tool to put things right.
- We consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.
Learning
- The landlord should ensure that it conducts thorough investigations when handling complaints. Complaint responses should address all aspects of the complaint and should reflect and be proportionate to the resident’s concerns.
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- There were gaps in the landlord’s records, with certain events referenced in its complaint responses not reflected in its documented records. For example, in its stage 1 response, it referred to a meeting held with the resident on 15 March 2023 and in its stage 2 response, to recordings being listened to by 2 separate officers. However, there were no contemporaneous records for either event, highlighting poor record keeping.
- The landlord did not open an ASB case while it was assessing whether the resident’s reports met its thresholds, resulting in significant gaps in the information available. The absence of accurate, contemporaneous records limits the landlord’s ability to demonstrate what action it took and when. Opening a case at an early stage would have enabled it to keep clear records of the resident’s reports, all communication, any evidence received, and the actions it carried out. This suggests there may be some areas where the landlord could strengthen its record‑keeping processes.
Communication
- There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord. It did not keep the resident informed of the progress of its investigation as frequently as it should have, which led him to chase and request updates. The landlord also failed to notify him promptly when it concluded the investigation.