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 (202320486)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320486

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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 handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat situated within a block.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident first reported noise nuisance from the property above in July 2022. The landlord has informed this Service that it asked the resident to complete diary sheets and report her concerns to the environmental health (EH) department within the local authority. There is no further evidence of any action being taken by the landlord.
  3. On 22 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and reported excessive noise from the flat above. She attributed this to children running around. The landlord informed the resident that this did not meet the criteria set out in its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy and that it would not be taking any further action.
  4. The resident made 2 further reports of noise nuisance on 30 January and 15 February 2023. She said that the noise was affecting her mental health.
  5. On 16 February 2023 the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to record any incidents. She was advised to contact EH to discuss the possibility of having sound monitoring equipment installed.
  6. The landlord visited the resident sometime in early March 2023. During the visit the landlord observed that in its opinion, the noise was not “loud”. However, it noted that over a period of time it could become “irritating”.
  7. Between 28 March and 12 May 2023, the landlord attempted to visit the alleged perpetrator on 3 separate occasions but was unable to gain access. As a result, it issued a tenancy warning in writing.
  8. With assistance from this Service, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 26 September 2023. She said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her noise reports. In resolution of the complaint, she wanted the landlord to resolve the noise disturbance and “insulate” the property above as it was not carpeted.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 October 2023. It provided the resident with a timeline of events and the actions it had taken. It acknowledged that it had failed to contact the resident as promised in June 2023 and offered £100 compensation in light of this failure.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied. She felt that the landlord’s response did not provide any resolution to the issues she was experiencing. In addition, she did not think that the offer of compensation was proportionate to the stress she continued to experience.
  11. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and issued its final response on 17 November 2023. It said that:
    1. It had not responded to the resident using her preferred method of contact.
    2. There had been unacceptable delays in its responses and that this had resulted in the resident having to chase for updates.
    3. It had failed to offer the resident mediation and use of the noise app.
    4. In order to move the case forward, a new ASB case had been opened.
    5. In resolution of the resident’s complaint it offered £700 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £150 for delayed responses.
      2. £100 for its failure to use the resident’s preferred method of contact.
      3. £200 for its failure to offer mediation or the noise app.
      4. £250 for its failure to progress her initial report made in July 2022.
  12. Following the stage 2 response the landlord opened a new ASB case. The resident continued to report ongoing noise nuisance and complete diary sheets. The landlord’s records show that the resident was offered mediation, which she refused, and a noise app to record future incidents. The resident informed the landlord that she was actively looking to move as a result of the ongoing noise disturbance.
  13. On 28 February 2024, the landlord visited the alleged perpetrator. It agreed to fund the installation of underlay and carpets to help reduce noise transference. The evidence shows that this offer was later withdrawn due to lack of co-operation from the alleged perpetrator.
  14. Between February 2024 and September 2024 the landlord continued to discuss the case with EH and provide the resident with diary sheets. It also re-offered mediation, but did not take any further action against the alleged perpetrator. The resident has informed this Service that the noise nuisance continued until she moved in September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. During the complaint journey, the resident stated that the situation was having an impact upon her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate her concerns. However, we are unable to establish a causal link between the landlord’s actions and any impact these may have had on the resident’s health. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages (including damage to health) is more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
  2. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. It may help firstly to explain that it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether or not noise reported by a resident amounts to ASB or statutory noise nuisance. It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether any noise nuisance or ASB reported took place as alleged, or at all. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role in these types of complaints is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in response to the reports made, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

Noise nuisance

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that when noise issues are reported, it will initially advise residents to try to resolve the noise issues directly with the neighbour in question, and signpost to EH where noise is excessive. When the threshold for noise reports is met, it will investigate noise issues within 5 working days.
  2. The ASB policy also outlines the ‘thresholds’ at which the landlord will take action. Reports classified as ‘noise’ and ‘other ASB’ must meet the following thresholds:
    1. 3 separate incidents reported within 7 days by the same household.
    2. 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same household.
    3. 2 separate incidents reported in the last 28 days by 2 different households.
    4. There is no threshold if the landlord considers the reporting party to be particularly vulnerable, and it has a duty of care.
  3. In this case, following the resident’s initial report of noise nuisance in July 2022, the landlord informed her that it did not meet the above threshold. It says it offered the resident advice but there is no evidence of this. At the time of the report the landlord was experiencing a cyber related incident which affected its record keeping capabilities. There is no evidence that the resident made any further reports until 30 January 2023.
  4. On 30 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she was having to sit in the communal stairway as she could not “put up with the noise”. She also said that the disturbance was affecting her mental health. The landlord’s policy states that it will not take action following singular incidents. Therefore, its decision not to open an ASB case was reasonable at this stage. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the effect it was having upon the resident by offering her advice and support. There is no evidence that it did either, which was a missed opportunity.
  5. It is not clear from the evidence how many further reports the resident made before the landlord opened an ASB case on 16 February 2023. Therefore, we are unable to determine if it followed the timescales set out within its policy. The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets to record any incidents and said that it would visit her in person to discuss her concerns. This was reasonable and in line with its procedure. There is also evidence that the landlord proactively contacted EH for advice, which demonstrates good practice.
  6. On 13 March 2023, EH informed the landlord that the noise being reported was not statutory noise nuisance. It recommended that the landlord investigated the flooring in the flat above. The evidence shows that the landlord made 3 unsuccessful attempts to visit the alleged perpetrator before issuing a tenancy warning in May 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord continued to attempt to gain access despite the resident still reporting concerns. It is noted that the disturbances did stop for a short period while the alleged perpetrator was not staying at the property. However, the landlord should have reasonably foreseen that this was only a temporary solution. It was not appropriate for it to close the case without speaking to the alleged perpetrator and making attempts to resolve the root cause. A period of monitoring following the tenancy warning (and the alleged perpetrator’s return to their property) would have been appropriate.
  7. Throughout the complaint journey, the information provided by the landlord was often confusing and contradictory. There is no evidence that it relayed the advice it received from EH to the resident in order to manage her expectations. It was also not made clear to the resident how the issue would be resolved until several months after it issued its final complaint response. In addition, the resident repeatedly expressed to the landlord that her mental health was suffering as a result of the noise. The landlord did not take reasonable steps to acknowledge this or offer relevant support within an acceptable timeframe.
  8. The landlord’s persistent requests that the resident provide recordings and diary sheets of the noise were not reasonable. While landlords do need evidence to support enforcement action, the initial noise issues in this case were not tenancy breaches that warranted an enforcement approach. The landlord should have focused its efforts on resolving the cause of the noise problem. Its constant requests for recordings and diary sheets caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident, and were a barrier to the landlord considering other solutions.
  9. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord appropriately identified several failures in its handling of this case. It acknowledged that it had failed to offer mediation within a reasonable timeframe and that it had not communicated effectively with the resident. Its offer of £700 compensation was in line with its policy and proportionate at the time. However, the continued delays in the months after the final complaint response indicate that it did not learn sufficient lessons and similar failings had a continued impact on the resident. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be made under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in future.
  10. Since the end of the landlord’s complaint process on 17 November 2023 it continued to deal with the resident’s noise reports under its ASB policy. We have seen correspondence between the resident and landlord which shows that the landlord continued the cycle of asking the resident to evidence the noise without any clear indication of how it intended to resolve it. It was not reasonable for the landlord to have continued to take an enforcement approach rather than focusing on other solutions.
  11. The landlord’s ineffective handling of the resident’s noise reports meant that the noise problem remained unresolved for more than 2 years, until the resident moved out in September 2024. This was unreasonable. We find that the landlord’s failure to take prompt and effective action to resolve the situation amounts to service failure.
  12. Although a finding of service failure has been made, the compensation awarded was in line with the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. Therefore, the landlord offered compensation that we consider was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the £700 compensation it offered within its final complaint response, if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord shares the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should focus on the identified problems with the landlord’s ASB handling and the importance of managing expectations surrounding noise nuisance.