Clarion Housing Association Limited (202410434)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a house. The resident and his wife have mental health vulnerabilities. In May 2022, the resident reported antisocial behaviour from his neighbour and in September 2023 the resident reported antisocial behaviour from a different neighbour.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord failed to investigate the reported ASB incidents in relation to neighbour B, and it failed to carry out a risk assessment when the ASB incidents were reported. There was also a considerable delay in it signposting the resident to support agencies.
6. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing its response at stage 2 of its complaints process and offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the delays.

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.

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.

7. It is outside our role to establish whether someone has committed antisocial behaviour, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s antisocial 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.
8. The resident raised as part of his complaint that the reported ASB had been ongoing for approximately 3 years. Our scheme states 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 raised a formal complaint in August 2024, and we have seen no evidence they raised a complaint within 12 months of when they became aware of the issues. However, the landlord included the resident’s ASB reports between May 2022 and September 2024 in its final complaint response. We therefore consider it reasonable in the circumstances to consider the landlord’s actions from May 2022 onwards. However, considering the approach set out in our scheme we have given greater weight to the landlord’s actions in the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of August 2024.
9. The resident reported various ASB incidents from 2 different neighbours living at the different properties. For ease of reference, this report will refer to neighbour A and neighbour B. The ASB incidents reported between May 2022 and September 2022 and from the end of May 2024 and November 2024 were in relation to neighbour A. The ASB incidents reported in September 2023, and the start of May 2024 were in relation to neighbour B.
10. In May 2022, the resident reported that neighbour A was using and dealing drugs from their property. He also reported noise nuisance from neighbour A and that they had been dumping rubbish, and their dogs were barking. The resident informed the landlord that the police attended his neighbour’s property in relation to the drug allegations and it asked the resident for a crime reference. The landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident for a crime reference number relating to the reported drug allegations. The police are responsible for investigating criminal behaviour such as drug use. The landlord would be expected to assist the police with any investigation, and the landlord may be able to take action following the end of a police investigation, if there was sufficient evidence to support enforcement action. The advice was compliant with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states crime related incidents should be reported to the police.
11. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets to record incidents of noise nuisance and dog barking. Diary sheets are a useful tool in gathering evidence of how often incidents occur in an anti-social behaviour case. In early June 2022, the resident told the landlord that noise levels had reduced. Later that month, the resident reported loud music, shouting, and swearing from the same neighbour’s property. He also said the reported ASB was impacting his mental health. The landlord issued a warning letter, which was consistent with its anti-social behaviour policy. The policy states that the landlord may use interventions such as tenancy support or warning letters to deter or prevent anti-social behaviour.
12. The resident continued to report shouting and swearing from neighbour A’s property and kept completing diary sheets. In September 2022, the landlord closed the anti-social behaviour case because reports had decreased and other agencies, including the police, confirmed they would take no further action. Based on this information, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the case.
13. In September 2023, the resident reported dogs barking loudly from neighbour B’s property and he also reported shouting and arguing from the property in May 2024. The landlord failed to investigate these reports or ask the resident for further information about the incident. This was unreasonable.
14. At the end of May 2024, the resident reported further antisocial behaviour from neighbour A, including loud music and arguing. In June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident an action plan. The plan confirmed the landlord would liaise with the police and other agencies, in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. The landlord also confirmed it would carry out a door-knock exercise to check if other residents were experiencing issues with neighbour A. During the exercise, the landlord spoke to one resident who said they had previously experienced antisocial behaviour from neighbour A and agreed to report any further incidents to the landlord. The door-knock exercise was an appropriate way to gather evidence. In July 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to advise it would close the case because no issues had been reported for several weeks, and sufficient evidence had not been gathered. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident before closing the case.
15. In August 2024 and September 2024, the resident continued to report shouting, arguing and door slamming from neighbour A’s property. The landlord responded reasonably to the reports by sending the resident a further action plan and it also liaised with the police. The resident also reported a separate incident that some of the neighbour’s children were kicking their football at his fence and banging on his gate. The landlord acknowledged the report and asked the resident to contact it if there were further similar incidents.
16. The resident also informed the landlord that the ongoing ASB was impacting him and his family’s health and was causing him and his wife anxiety, stress, and depression. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident and his family. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
17. Due to the ongoing ASB and the resident’s vulnerabilities it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment to help understand the impact of the ASB incidents on the resident. However, the landlord failed to complete any risk assessments, and when the resident initially informed the landlord that the ongoing ASB was impacting his mental health, it also failed to signpost the resident to organisations which could provide support.
18. In October 2024, the resident reported further ASB incidents from neighbour A, including shouting, arguing and the neighbour dumping items in the resident’s garden. Shortly after, the landlord issued the neighbour with a warning letter which was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy.
19. The resident asked the landlord to move him and his family to another property due to the impact from the ongoing ASB. The landlord responded to this request in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and explained it could not approve a management move for the resident as there was no risk of serious injury or immediate risk to life. This was reasonable and in line with its management transfer policy.
20. The resident continued to report ASB incidents from neighbour A and continued to inform the landlord that the ASB was impacting his mental health. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord asked the resident to download a noise application on to his mobile phone and record the reported shouting. The noise application is an important tool to understand the type of noise nuisance and also the volume of the noise. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident to download the noise application sooner than it did.
21. In November 2024, the landlord also discussed the impact of the reported ASB on the resident’s mental health and provided information about organisations which could provide support, which was reasonable. It closed the resident’s ASB case in December 2024 and also reconsidered the resident’s request to move and agreed to approve a discretionary management move. We acknowledge that ASB can be very difficult for a resident to live with. Therefore, it was positive that the landlord approved the resident’s request to move to another property. The resident told us in November 2025 that he had been offered a suitable property to move to and confirmed he would be moving into the property at the end November 2025 or start of December 2025.
22. Overall, it is positive that the landlord agreed to move the resident. However, it failed to investigate the reported ASB incidents in relation to neighbour B and failed to carry out a risk assessment when the ASB incidents were reported. There was also a considerable delay in it signposting the resident to support agencies when he initially told the landlord the ASB was impacting his mental health. The landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation to recognise these errors. This is in line 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.

23. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days
24. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 16 August 2024. Following this, the landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 September 2024. The complaint response was late and outside the 10-working day timescale referenced in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy.
25. On 24 September 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 15 November 2024. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 38 working days to provide its response. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as he had to wait to receive his stage 2 complaint response before he could progress his complaint with us.
26. The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that there were delays in it providing its stage 1 and 2 complaint response and offered the resident £100 compensation. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was sufficient to recognise the delays. 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 amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

27. It was positive that the landlord later agreed to approve the resident for a management move. This demonstrated that it understood the impact the reported ASB incidents were having on the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

29. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when he reported ASB incident’s relating to neighbour B.