Clarion Housing Association Limited (202335942)

Background

1. The resident intermittently reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from 2017. The landlord opened a new ASB case in July 2023 after previous reports that year did not meet the relevant threshold.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord recognised its failure to maintain good communication and excessive delays.
6. The landlord took reasonable steps within its ASB policy with multi-agency partnerships and engagement with the alleged perpetrator.
7. The offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for failings with a significant impact.
8. The landlord apologised for complaint handling failings. It conducted a thorough review at stage 2 and implemented relevant learning. The offer of compensation was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for failings with a limited impact.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident said the incidents they reported caused them significant distress and anxiety and affected their health. We do not doubt this. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is likely more appropriate for the courts to deal with, or as a personal injury claim. It is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What we can assess is how a landlord dealt with the reports has received and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.

What we have investigated

10. The resident has stated that ASB began in 2017 and continues. We can only consider the matters addressed within the landlord’s internal complaint responses. The landlord opened a new ASB case in July 2023, since when the resident made regular ASB reports. Our investigation will examine the period from July 2023 through to July 2024, when the landlord completed the actions outlined in its complaint responses and closed the case. Any incidents reported outside this timeframe fall outside the scope of this investigation.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will investigate cases within 5 days of them meeting the relevant threshold. The threshold is 3 incidents reported by a single household within 7 days or 5 incidents within 28 days. It advises residents to contact environmental health, and it will work with them on noise cases. It says it will consider a range of interventions including acceptable behaviour contracts, tenancy warnings and potential legal action.
12. We have not seen evidence of how many reports the resident made prior to the landlord opening the ASB case in July 2023. It has confirmed it reviewed the evidence on 10 July 2023 and found it did not meet the above threshold. However, it has said that 9 days later it received evidence of loud music from the resident and opened the case and made an action plan. This was a positive step.
13. However, it is unclear from the information provided whether it appropriately communicated this to the resident. It has also provided no evidence of the action plan it references. This is unreasonable and evidences poor record keeping. Although the landlord’s policy references mediation and encouraging neighbours towards a resolution, it failed to consider or pursue this.
14. In August 2023 a contractor asked the landlord to conduct a welfare check on the resident as they had said the neighbour tried to kick their door in. The landlord was unreasonable in failing to follow this up with the resident. It did not contact the police until October 2023, when it confirmed there was no criminal behaviour reported. Although there was a delay, the impact was limited given the police’s subsequent advice and the landlord still ultimately followed its policy and maintained partnership working. In August 2023 it also linked with environmental health and maintained strong and clear communication in this partnership.
15. The landlord regularly attempted to arrange visits to the neighbour, but this was difficult due to the need for partnership working and reasonable adjustments with the neighbour. We understand the complexity of arranging a multi-agency approach and the delays this can cause. The landlord has evidenced regular contact with other agencies and the neighbour to make reasonable attempts to visit his home and assess the noise concerns.
16. The landlord has provided evidence it was considering an acceptable behaviour contract in September 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its policy. However, it noted in March 2024 it should take a more robust approach to gaining access to the neighbour’s home. The landlord failed to carry out an initial visit to the neighbour until May 2024. This was an unreasonable delay even accounting for the difficulties referred to above. Although it wrote to the neighbour saying it would consider taking action if he did not allow access, the landlord failed to show it considered escalating the matter within a reasonable timeframe.
17. During this period, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, both personally and through support organisations, and provided more evidence. The landlord has also provided evidence that the resident attempted formal complaints through different channels in September 2023. Whilst it failed to address these as complaints, it did contact the resident that month and provided an update and assurance that it was investigating the case. This was a reasonable step in improving its communication. However, due to the regularity of failed appointments with the neighbour, the landlord missed the opportunity to provide meaningful updates to the resident.
18. The resident raised her complaint in October 2023, following an incident where emergency services attended. She had advised the landlord of this but there was a very limited response. This was unreasonable. The landlord contacted her on 5 October 2023 and explained that staff leave had caused the delay and apologised. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not have more robust measures in place to manage caseloads during staff absence. The landlord then contacted her again in mid-October 2023 and asked for her to send CCTV footage of the incident. The resident asked whether the neighbour had gotten permission to install CCTV. It said it would look into this but does not appear to have provided a follow up response which was unreasonable.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 response in October 2023 noted delays in responding to the resident but that these were generally done within its normal procedure. It provided explanations for the delays which was appropriate. However, it failed to take the opportunity to complete a wider review of the case. It missed an opportunity here to take a more robust approach. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day as she felt the response did not address the lack of resolution of the ASB.
20. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided a thorough review of its ASB case handling and identified specific failings in its communication and against its policy. It recognised the limited investigation at stage 1. It said it was reviewing all open ASB cases, had a noise test booked with the neighbour and an independent contractor would review its case handling to provide recommendations on next steps. This was a resolution focussed response, accepting clear responsibility for failings and identifying lessons to be learned. It provided a reasonable action plan to improve its ASB case handling and has provided evidence to us of regular case reviews and continued multi-agency working since.
21. The landlord offered compensation of £650 related to the ASB. This consisted of £150 for its communication failings and £500 for failing to follow its ASB policy. This award was in line with its compensation policy where it recognises there was a considerable failure. It is within the range of our remedies guidance for failures that had a significant impact on a resident. The level of compensation was therefore proportionate.
22. The landlord conducted a peer review of the case in March 2024 when the resident raised further questions. It updated her on its multi-agency approach, its external case review and the delays in visiting the neighbor. It acknowledged the resident had refused to have recording equipment installed in February 2024 and asked to arrange a meeting. It was resolution focused to update the resident on the action points from its complaint response.
23. In May 2024, the landlord visited the neighbour and confirmed he had moved his TV and stereo away from the party wall and was keeping to a previously agreed volume. This was a reasonable step and appropriate given the nature of the evidence it held. It also discussed a potential move with the neighbour and arranged to support him in this. In the same month, it received confirmation from Environmental Health that the resident had noise monitoring equipment installed for a week. This recorded a low level of audible noise on one day and no statutory noise issues so they closed the case. It was reasonable for the landlord to take this into account when assessing the case.
24. The landlord then conducted regular internal reviews of the case with more communication to the resident and was clearer about its assessment of evidence submitted. This was resolution focused and helped set clearer expectations. It closed the ASB case with the agreement of the resident in July 2024 on the basis that the neighbour planned to move.
25. Overall, the landlord recognised and apologised for its earlier delays and communication failings. It took significant steps to learn from these and has shown evidence of regular reviews of its proposed actions following the stage 2 response. It has also actioned recommendations for improved case handling from the independent contractor.
26. Although its communication with the resident was poor at times, it has evidenced continuous action, multi-agency work and engagement with the neighbour to resolve the substantive issue. These actions and the offer of compensation have resulted in our finding of reasonable redress.

27. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 was applicable during this complaint period. This says the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy was not in line with this. It aimed for a stage 1 response within 20 working days and a stage 2 response within 40 working days. Its current complaints policy is now in line with the Complaint Handling Code 2024.
29. The landlord’s stage 1 response was 3 days late and did not reasonably address the substantive complaint issues. Although its stage 2 response was 7 days late, it took the opportunity to thoroughly review its ASB case handling, noting its failure to do so at stage 1.
30. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the stage 1 inaccuracies. It offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling failure. This was a reasonable offer given the inaccuracy and the short delays and was in line with our remedies guidance for failings that had a limited impact. The landlord noted learning in its stage 2 response which it evidenced implementing with case reviews, independent recommendations and improved case handling. We have therefore found the landlord offered reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. A positive learning point from this case is the strength of the landlord’s record‑keeping, which provided a clear, chronological account of actions taken and communications exchanged. Accurate and comprehensive records enabled the landlord to demonstrate the steps it had taken, the cause of delays and the rationale behind decisions. Good record‑keeping is essential to service quality as it provides an auditable trail, supports consistent case management, and helps protect both residents and staff by evidencing actions taken. In this case, it ensured the landlord could review its case management and acknowledge where it had acted outside of its policy. This highlights the value of maintaining thorough documentation throughout the lifecycle of a complaint or ASB case.

Communication

32. A key learning from this case is the importance of clear communication about the threshold for ASB and communication as part of a dynamic action plan. The landlord did not set early expectations about the evidential requirements or the limitations of its ASB policy. This lack of clarity contributed to avoidable frustration. By communicating thresholds, processes, and limitations from the outset, the landlord could have better managed expectations. This may have reduced dissatisfaction and ensured that the resident understood how it would assess reports and what outcomes were realistically possible. Clear communication is essential in ASB cases, not only to guide residents but to maintain trust and confidence in the landlord’s handling of their concerns.