Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202333013)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333013

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 October 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident is being represented by a solicitor in this complaint. For ease of reference, the resident and his solicitor will both be referred to as “the resident” in this report.
  3. In August 2022, the resident moved into the property and stated he experienced noise nuisance from a neighbouring property and initially reported this to the local authority’s environmental team.
  4. The resident first reported the alleged noise nuisance from his neighbour to the landlord on 7 December 2022.
  5. The resident completed diary sheets between December 2022 and May 2023 to record the noise incidents and sent these to the landlord.
  6. On 10 July 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He stated the anti-social behaviour from his neighbour had escalated. The resident explained his neighbour was issued with a noise abatement order by the local authority. He also stated his neighbour displayed aggressive and threatening behaviour to him which he reported to the police. The resident said he was unhappy the landlord had taken insignificant action to resolve the situation.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2023. It explained it received allegations of noise nuisance caused by the resident’s neighbour and conducted an interview and an action plan where it agreed its actions including:
    1.  Arranging a neighbourhood officer to carry out a visit to possibly witness the noise nuisance.
    2. Review diary sheets and noise application recordings and to take action based on evidence.
  8. The landlord also explained it was aware of the reported threats of harm to the resident from his neighbour and that the police investigated this, but they confirmed the footage did not meet the threshold for an arrest to be made. The landlord advised the next steps would be to speak to the resident to obtain further evidence of any threatening behaviour. It stated if there was sufficient evidence it could consider an injunction via the courts. The landlord also explained that an eviction would be a last resort, and it would need to exhaust other means of resolution prior to considering this.
  9. On 24 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process. The resident stated he was issued with a threshold not met letter for his reports about noise nuisance. In addition, the resident explained he sent the landlord diary sheets and contacted it multiple times.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2023. It apologised that the investigation did not start in January 2023 and stated it had asked its team that manages anti-social behaviour investigations were reminded in their next team meeting of the importance of analysing all evidence and checking dates thoroughly to ensure thresholds for investigations are not missed. The landlord also acknowledged there was a delay of nearly 2 months in opening an anti-social behaviour investigation following the receipt of the diary sheets from the resident. In addition, the landlord acknowledged that it did not communicate regularly enough in the early stages. However, it stated after the initial delay it followed its policy and procedures and took steps to try to find a resolution to the situation. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise its failures in handling the reported anti-social behaviour. It also offered £50 for complaint handling delays.

 

  1. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated he wanted the landlord to evict his neighbour and for the landlord to compensate him £13,481.90 for the lack of enjoyment of his property and reimburse part of his mortgage.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour

  1. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed anti-social behaviour, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
  2. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy explains the landlord is committed to taking effective action and using powers available to it, where it can provide an effective remedy. In addition, it explains it recognises the importance of working collaboratively with the police and local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing the law.
  3. In addition, the landlord’s ASB policy explains it will investigate an ASB case within 5 working days when its threshold is met. The policy explains the landlord has the following thresholds for opening an ASB Case:
    1. Three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
    2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
    3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households.
  4. In December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and reported alleged noise nuisance from his neighbour, and he explained he had previously reported this to the local authority’s environmental team. Shortly after the report, the resident completed a diary sheet to record the noise incidents. The resident recorded on the diary sheet that there was loud music and shouting. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to complete a diary sheet to keep a record of the number of alleged noise incidents.
  5. Although the resident completed a diary sheet to record the reported noise incidents. The landlord sent a letter to him on 17 December 2022 and 5 January 2023 explaining the threshold had not been met and closed the ASB case. The landlord acknowledged that it should not have closed the resident’s ASB case at this point. Its positive the landlord recognised the error. However, we understand the resident may have been distressed by having his ASB case closed when it remained unresolved.
  6. The resident provided the landlord with additional completed diary sheets in January 2023 and also sent 3 videos recording noise incidents. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to this information provided by the resident. This was unreasonable and not in line with its timescale of 5 working days referenced in its ASB policy. The landlord eventually opened an ASB case in March 2023, after the resident chased the landlord for an update. Following this, the landlord asked the resident to download a noise application to record any noise incidents and continue to complete diary sheets. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to download the noise app to record the noise nuisance, so that it could gather evidence to investigate the issues he had reported. The noise app is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise.
  7. The resident used the noise application as requested by the landlord and sent it recordings of the noise in May 2023. The resident also reported an incident of aggressive behaviour from his neighbour. Shortly after this, the landlord agreed the noise from the resident’s neighbour’s property was excessive and was considered ASB. Once it confirmed the noise was excessive, the landlord took appropriate steps by arranging a meeting with the resident’s neighbour to discuss the ASB. The landlord also confirmed it gave a verbal warning to the resident’s neighbour for the noise nuisance which was a reasonable step taken by the landlord. The landlord was also notified that the resident’s neighbour was issued with a noise abatement order by the local authority’s environmental team.
  8. Shortly after the meeting, the resident reported an incident in June 2023 with his neighbour threatening violence which was reported to the police. The landlord acted appropriately in liaising with the police in relation to the threat of violence incident from the resident’s neighbour and issued his neighbour with a final tenancy warning, which was reasonable.
  9. The resident also reported a further incident with his neighbour to the landlord in July 2023, which involved his neighbour shouting at his partner when she left the property to go to work. In addition, the resident reported that his camera doorbell recorded the resident’s neighbour shouting at the resident and his partner and banging on his front door. The resident reported the incident to the police and shortly after, the resident informed the landlord that the police had confirmed it had arrested the resident’s neighbour and charged them. It was also confirmed that the police had passed the case to the magistrate’s court. The landlord acted appropriately by waiting for the outcome from the court case prior to taking any further action against the resident’s neighbour. Landlords are expected to assist the police in their investigations, but they must not interfere with an ongoing police investigation. The police are the lead agency for criminal investigations. Therefore, the landlord was limited in the action it could take until the police investigation and associated court case had concluded.
  10. Shortly after the reported incident in July 2023, the resident and his partner left the property as they did not feel safe living there. As the resident was away from his property, the landlord decided to suspend the ASB case. This was a reasonable step taken by the landlord as the resident could not monitor and inform the landlord about any noise incidents or other ASB incidents if he was not staying at the property. The landlord can only reasonably take action against tenants for noise nuisance or other ASB if it has evidence that the noise is ongoing. Without this evidence, the landlord could not take action.
  11. In October 2023, the landlord received an outcome from the court for the resident’s neighbour’s case, and the case was discontinued due to a lack of evidence. Given that the court concluded that there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations, the landlord acted reasonably in not taking any further action and appropriately notified the resident of this.
  12. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response there were some failings in how it initially managed the reported noise nuisance. It acknowledged that it incorrectly closed the resident’s ASB case when he sent in diary sheets. The landlord also recognised when the resident provided further diary sheets there was a delay in acknowledging this information and investigating the reported noise. It also explained there were instances its communication could have been better. The landlord apologised for these errors and offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
  13. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. The offer also complies with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. The landlord ultimately corrected its errors, in this case so there was no permanent impact, although we acknowledge that the ASB was ongoing and this had an impact on the resident.
  14. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 2 complaint it would provide the resident with a single point of contact and offer mediation to him and his neighbour. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord carried out these steps as agreed. The landlord’s single point of contact introduced themselves to the resident and his partner and the landlord also offered mediation which the resident declined. Mediation is optional; therefore, it was entirely the resident’s decision whether he accepted the mediation offer. This service recognises that it was reasonable for the landlord to offer mediation to the resident as mediation can be an effective tool to resolve disputes between neighbours in some cases.
  15. The resident told his single point of contact that he and his partner were still not living in the property and confirmed they had gone travelling and were renting their property to tenants. In response to this, the landlord reconfirmed that the resident’s ASB case was suspended due to him not living in the property which was reasonable. However, the resident’s single point of contact confirmed if the resident’s tenants renting the property experienced any ASB from their neighbour, the resident should let the landlord know which was also a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
  16. We recognise the resident requested for the landlord to evict his neighbour. We acknowledge the multiple reported ASB incidents would have been distressing for the resident and his partner. However, eviction is a legal process, and the landlord would need to show the court substantial evidence that there are grounds for an eviction due to prolonged and severe ASB where previous attempts to manage the behaviour through other tenancy enforcement actions have not been successful. The landlord also explained in its complaint response that evicting a resident would be a last resort measure, which was a reasonable explanation.
  17. The resident also stated he wanted the landlord to compensate him £13,481.90 for the lack of enjoyment of their property and reimburse part of his mortgage. However, the landlord has taken steps to manage the reported ASB by issuing warning letters and liaised with agencies such as the police. Therefore, the resident was still obliged to pay his mortgage and service charges in line with the terms set out in the lease agreement. The landlord took appropriate steps by offering the resident £500 during its complaints process for the identified delays and communication errors. The compensation offer proportionately reflects the impact of the distress and inconvenience on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case for its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.

The associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that landlords should have a 2 stage complaints process. A stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s interim complaints policy from the time of the complaint states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 response within 20 working days and a stage 2 response within 40 working days. These timescales were not compliant with the Code. However, the landlord’s recent complaints policy includes the same timescales referenced in the Code.
  2. On 10 July 2023, the resident submitted his complaint to the landlord. Following this, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2023. The response was slightly late by 4 working days and not in line with the timescales referenced in the Code.
  3. On 24 August 2023, the resident requested his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, which was provided on 26 October 2023 and approximately 24 working days late. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as he was delayed in progressing his complaint to the Ombudsman because he needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there was a delay in issuing its complaint responses and apologised for this and offered the resident £50 compensation to recognise the delay. The overall compensation offered for complaint-handling delays was sufficient to recognise the delays for both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves concerns about the resident’s:
    1. reports of anti-social behaviour from his neighbour.
    2. associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pay the resident its original offer of £550 compensation made during its complaint process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for this complaint is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.