Clarion Housing Association Limited (202400983)

Decision
Case ID	202400983
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing association
Occupancy	Secure tenancy
Date	23 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a ground floor flat. He complained to the landlord that it had not acted against a neighbour in the flat above, who he said was feeding wildlife from her balcony.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a neighbour feeding wildlife.
We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of a neighbour feeding wildlife.
2. Reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord incorrectly assumed in September 2023 that it had resolved the reports of a neighbour feeding wildlife. It did not follow up his reports until he complained. There was poor communication as it passed his enquiries to different teams and it asked him to provide information it already had.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the slight delay.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 21 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by how it dealt with his reports of a neighbour feeding wildlife. It must pay this directly to him by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. It may deduct any compensation already paid relating to this order.	No later than 21 May 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the property, including the garden, to confirm whether it has resolved the problem of a neighbour feeding wildlife. It should review his evidence to satisfy itself. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. Following this, it must give the resident and us a clear update in writing on its position and what, if any, action it will take. This must include clear timeframes on when it will act. If it cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 21 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers £50 compensation for complaint handling failures if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that it makes this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 September 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to report a neighbour, who he said was feeding wildlife on the balcony above his flat. He said falling food was attracting rats to his garden. It spoke with the neighbour and on 18 October 2023, told him it had closed the case.
30 January 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had not acted on his reports that his neighbour was feeding wildlife. He said the situation was affecting his health.
5 February 2024	In its complaint response, the landlord said it had acted following his report in September 2023 but could not give details due to data protection. It accepted it should have arranged a follow-up inspection. It said it would visit on 15 February 2024. It apologised for inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation.
26 February 2024	In his request to escalate his complaint, the resident said the landlord had not responded to his reports in November and December 2023. He said the compensation was not enough as the problem had affected his health and he had spent money to keep rats out of his home.
5 April 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for not contacting the resident following his reports. It said at its visit on 15 February 2024, it found no evidence of a mess caused by wildlife. It accepted the compensation it offered was not enough, and offered a further £150 for inconvenience, plus £50 for the late complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his escalation to us, the resident said he had not been able to open his door or windows as he was “frightened” of rats getting into his home. He said he could not use his garden. He said the landlord had not acted against his neighbour and the situation had affected his health.

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	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of a neighbour feeding wildlife
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us the situation affected his health, and he incurred costs. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and financial loss. This is because independent experts give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased insights on the cause of any illness or loss. When disputes arise over the cause, courts can examine testimony. Because of this, a court can better deal with this part of the resident’s complaint. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to his concerns.
The resident said he wanted the landlord to act against his neighbour. Our remedies guidance says we will not make an order that would put matters right for the resident but would adversely affect other individuals. However, we can assess whether it dealt with the information he shared appropriately.

What we have investigated

We acknowledge that reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and neighbour disputes can be difficult for a landlord to resolve. It is not our role to decide whether ASB took place. However, we can decide whether it followed its policy and acted reasonably. For example, when it received a report, did it assess it and offer support.
The landlord’s ASB policy says ASB is “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance”. It says it does not consider reports about every-day living activity, which a neighbour does not intend to cause nuisance or annoyance, to be ASB. It says although these activities may not be ASB, it knows they can have a serious effect and will deal with reports of this type through its good neighbour policy.
The good neighbour policy says the landlord will assess reports to consider the severity, frequency, duration, intention, and effect to ensure a suitable response. It recognises that individuals have “different tolerances, expectations, and perceptions” of what is not appropriate, which means some people will see behaviour as ASB, while others may see it as reasonable. It says it will use practical solutions and interventions to support neighbours to find their own resolution, where possible.
We have not seen a record of the resident’s first report of his neighbour feeding wildlife. However, in its complaint response, the landlord said he first made a report on 20 September 2023. On 26 September 2023, the resident sent the landlord photo evidence. It called him on 6 October 2023 and left a voicemail message. It then emailed him on 9 October 2023 and told him it had spoken to the neighbour and had closed his report.
It is unclear when the landlord spoke to the neighbour, as we have not seen a record of this. However, it said it had spoken to her by 9 October 2023, which was 14 working days later, at the latest. We accept this conversation took place as we have seen later communications from the neighbour about this. The evidence shows the time taken to respond at this stage was reasonable.
The resident made another report about his neighbour feeding wildlife on 8 November 2023. On 17 November 2023, he told the landlord that she was in breach of her tenancy agreement. It replied to him the same day and said it had passed his report to its estates team. Its records on 1 December 2023 say an officer called him to ask for his neighbour’s address. It said it would take no further action until he provided this. As he had already reported this in September 2023, it would have been reasonable for it to have a record of the neighbour’s address. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
We have seen no further contact between the resident and landlord until 7 January 2024, when the resident sent it photos. On 9 January 2024, he told the landlord he had reported the problem several times and it was having a negative effect on his health. He said there was a problem with rats, and he had to clear up food mess every week. He said he could not sit in his garden or hang out his washing, and he could not open his windows or doors because of worries about rats getting in. The landlord responded on 10 January 2024 and said it had passed his concerns to its regional housing team.
The resident chased the landlord on 23 January 2024. He said he had a voicemail message from it on 18 January 2024 saying it would tell his neighbour to stop feeding the wildlife. He said he called back and left a message but had no reply. The landlord replied to him the next day and said it had passed his enquiry to its customer support team. On 25 January 2024 he told it he was confused over which team was dealing with his reports and the different reference numbers it had given him.
We have seen that over the course of 2 months the landlord told the resident it had passed his reports to 3 different teams, and it sent communications using different reference numbers. There are mentions of calls to the resident at this time, but we have seen no evidence it acted beyond this. We have also seen that he told it that officers he spoke with did not have information he had sent. The evidence shows there was a failure to manage the resident’s reports and a failure of the landlord’s record keeping.
On 30 January 2024 the resident complained about the landlord’s lack of response to his reports. He said he had reported the issue several times, he could not sleep, and it was affecting his health.
In its complaint response on 5 February 2024, the landlord said it had acted in line with its policy following his report on 20 September 2023. It said it could not tell him what it had done because of data protection regulations, but it closed the case in October 2023 as it assumed it had resolved the matter. It said following his report on 24 January 2024, it dealt with it in line with policy but again could not give any information. It said it had arranged a tenancy breach inspection for 15 February 2024 and would act if it found a problem. It accepted a follow-up inspection should have taken place in October 2023. It said it had now put in place a process to ensure it had resolved the issue before closing a case. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation.
It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay, say it had changed its process, and arrange an inspection. We accept there are limits on what information it could share that related to a third party. However, it did not explain the reasons for the delay or why it had passed his enquiries to different teams. It also did not acknowledge the distress the situation had caused him.
Records of the landlord’s visit on 15 February 2024 say it found no evidence of mess related to feeding wildlife. It said it knocked on the neighbour’s door but got no response. We have seen no evidence the landlord sent a written communication to the neighbour about an appointment at this time, which would have been a reasonable step.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 February 2024. He wanted it to explain why it did not deal with his reports between October 2023 and January 2024, address its “poor communication”, and review the compensation.
In its final complaint response on 5 April 2024, the landlord accepted it closed his case on 9 October 2023 but did not act despite him contacting it several times during November and December 2023. It said on 1 December 2023, it asked him about the identity of the neighbour, despite already having the information. It said there was no evidence it did anything until he complained. It apologised for its service failures.
It said when it visited him on 15 February 2024, it found no evidence of mess from feeding wildlife. It said it had not been able to contact his neighbour on 15 February 2024, so it tried to visit her again on 22 February 2024. It said it eventually met her at an arranged appointment on 22 March 2024, when she denied feeding wildlife and raised concerns about his accusations. It said it would keep him informed, investigate his neighbour’s concerns, and inspect the area to ensure it was clear of animal feed. It said it had dealt with his reports correctly since its stage 1 response, but the compensation offered was inadequate. Because of this, it offered an extra £150.
The resident told us in April 2026 that the landlord did not resolve the matter after it sent its final response. He shared a letter from it dated 6 March 2026 that related to “several complaints” about residents feeding wildlife and the risk of vermin. He sent us videos showing squirrels jumping onto the balcony above his home and rats in his garden. As these are not date stamped we cannot assess when the resident took the videos. He told us that he had asked his neighbour to stop feeding the wildlife but did not want the landlord to offer mediation. He said he was receiving counselling support because of the issue and sent us evidence of appointments.
Overall, the evidence shows the failings amounted to maladministration. As it accepted, it made an incorrect assumption after the report in September 2023 that it had resolved the matter. It then did not follow up the resident’s reports over a 4-month period until he complained. During this time, there was poor communication as it passed his enquiries to different teams and asked him to provide information it already had.
The resident told the landlord the situation had affected his health and enjoyment of his garden. He explained the rats caused him stress and anxiety, which meant he was frightened to go into his garden or leave windows and doors open. We acknowledge that the landlord offered £200 compensation for inconvenience and delays but did not compensate him for the distress caused. Our order that it pays £300, inclusive of £200 already offered, is in line with our compensation guidance for a finding of maladministration where a landlord has acknowledged failings but did not put things right.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 30 January 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it the same day and sent its response on 5 February 2024, in line with its policy.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 26 February 2024. It acknowledged it on 28 February 2024 and sent its final response on 5 April 2024, which was 29 working days later and slightly outside the timescales in its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. This was in line with our compensation guidance when there was a minor failure in complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There are some gaps in the landlord’s records relating to the resident’s reports, including on information it already held. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help it with this.

Communication

The landlord accepted it did not respond to all the resident’s communications. This was in part due to it being unclear which team was dealing with his reports.