Clarion Housing Association Limited (202412825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412825

Clarion Housing Association Limited

11 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Repairs to his TV aerial.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block. The landlord recorded the resident, and his household members, as vulnerable due to having physical health conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord to report ASB from his neighbour on 29 March 2023. He said he had experienced repeat incidents of his neighbour deliberately flooding his property from above. He said the neighbour was abusive towards him that day, and he had reported the incident to the police. He reported the neighbour regularly blocked the communal corridor with personal items.
On 3 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident’s neighbour a warning letter about storing personal items in the communal corridor. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 April 2023 to ask for an update about his ASB case, as he had not heard anything. It is unclear if the landlord responded at the time.
The landlord contacted the resident’s neighbour on 2 May 2023 to discuss the allegations of ASB, and was unable to speak to them. The landlord sent further warning letters about personal items in communal areas in May, June, and July 2023. The resident asked for an update about the ASB case on 14 July 2023. It is unclear whether the landlord responded at the time. The landlord tried to contact the resident’s neighbour on 16 August 2023, but was unable to get through.
The resident made a complaint on 21 October 2023, and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. He said the neighbour was making his “life hell”. He was unhappy that he had reported the alleged incident of abuse in March 2023, but it had not contacted him about it. He provided a crime reference number related to the incident. He also raised a concern that when doing external works it had broken his TV aerial. He said he had chased the repair throughout 2023, but it was not yet fixed. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 October 2023 to inform him it had opened an ASB case, and interviewed his neighbour on 15 December 2023.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 28 March 2024, and upheld his complaint. It said the ASB case was “closed and not located until October 2023”. It set out the actions it had taken since opening the ASB case, and apologised it had not been in touch to discuss its actions before. It apologised for its handling of the TV aerial repair, and said an error meant the repair was not logged. It set out that it would do the repair when it put up scaffolding for the upcoming external works. It offered the resident £200 for its handling of the ASB case, £200 for its handling of the TV aerial repair, and £100 for its complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 April 2024 and asked his complaint to go to stage 2 of its complaints process. He said he accepted the resolution to the TV aerial issue. He was unhappy with its handling of the ASB case and said he had provided evidence that it could have acted on. He was unhappy about the noise transference from his neighbour’s property, as they created excessive noise on the wooden floors.
The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets, and contacted the police for information about any reported incidents in May 2024. It installed carpets in the neighbour’s property in June 2024, the exact date is unclear.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2024, and upheld his complaint. It apologised for its handling of ASB, and said it should have supported the resident better throughout the case. It set out the actions it had taken on the ASB case, and apologised that emails he had sent were not properly recorded on its systems. It offered the resident a further £800 in compensation for its handling of the ASB case, and £75 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted this Service on 12 November 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the ASB was continuing, and the landlord was not taking the appropriate actions. As a resolution to his complaint, he said he wanted the landlord to approve him for an internal transfer to a different property. He also said the landlord never repaired the TV aerial.
After initially refusing, the landlord approved the resident’s transfer request on 12 December 2024. The resident has not yet transferred to an alternative property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to his TV aerial is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident raised a concern about damage to his TV aerial as part of his stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for its handling of the issue, offered £200 in compensation, and said it would repair the aerial when it had scaffolding up to complete the exterior works at the property. In his stage 2 escalation request the resident stated he was satisfied with its response, and the landlord did not discuss the issue in its stage 2 complaint response of June 2024.
In January 2025, the resident told this Service that the landlord did not complete the repair to the TV aerial when it completed the exterior works in late 2024. The matters complained about occurred after the landlord issued its final complaint response, and as such its handling of the TV aerial repair is not within the scope of this investigation.
The resident’s concerns are noted, but the resident’s concerns about this matter have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation. It is recommended the landlord contacts the resident to progress with the outstanding repair. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue he can raise this as a new complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. He may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman if he wants to once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it adopts a supportive approach when dealing with ASB. The policy states that it works in partnership with both external and internal partners to tackle ASB.
It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. We acknowledge that the resident does not believe the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. It is outside our remit to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. and whether it was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident’s complaint of October 2023 stated that he had been raising concerns about ASB, and the landlord’s handling of it, since 2020. He claimed his neighbour has repeatedly and purposefully flooded his property with water from above. The serious nature of the resident’s concerns about the flooding are noted. However, we are unable to investigate matters dating back to 2020, due to the passage of time. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
It is also noted that the resident did not report any incidents of flooding during the period covered by the complaint. Taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus the events from March 2023 onwards. This was when the resident raised fresh concerns about ASB to the landlord.
When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, in November 2024, he raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of more recent reports of ASB. This concern was raised 5 months after the landlord’s final complaint response of June 2024. The landlord has not had the opportunity to respond as part of a formal complaint. As such the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports of ASB are not within the scope of this investigation. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to discuss his concerns about ongoing ASB. As above, the resident can raise a separate complaint about the recent incidents if he is unhappy with the landlord’s response to this.
When the resident reported an incident of ASB in March 2023, we have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord contacted him to discuss his concerns. It is noted the landlord wrote to his neighbour around that time warning about storing items in the communal corridor, which was appropriate. There is no evidence to indicate it took any other action at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the situation with his neighbour. The landlord’s lack of action, or contact with him, may have increased the distress he experienced. The resident was further inconvenienced by the fact he chased the landlord for an update on his case in May 2023, and did not receive a response. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The evidence indicates that the landlord did take some action around the ASB in May, June, and July 2023. It issued warning letters about the neighbour storing items in the communal area, and tried to contact them to discuss the allegation of abusive behaviour in May 2023. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord communicated with the resident about the actions it was taking at that time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, and it missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact he did not know what actions the landlord was taking with regards to his concerns about ASB.
It was appropriate to try and discuss the allegations with the resident’s neighbour in May 2023. However, when it was unable to make contact it did not follow up on its initial contact. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The landlord was not proactive in following up with the resident’s neighbour which was unreasonable.
It is noted that on receipt of the resident’s further contact in July 2023 the landlord tried to contact his neighbour again to discuss the allegations. It was unable to speak to them. Again, we have seen no evidence it followed up on this contact at that time. This further evidence of a lack of follow up supports the conclusion the landlord was not thorough when investigating the complaint about ASB. The lack of appropriate follow up impacted on its ability to investigate the case, which inconvenienced the resident further.
The landlord did not open an ASB case and thoroughly investigate until the resident made his complaint in October 2023. This was 7 months after he raised his concern about the alleged abusive behaviour from his neighbour. This was an unreasonable delay which inconvenienced the resident. The evidence shows it completed an action plan, and interviewed his neighbour in December 2023. The actions in took once it open the case were appropriate in the circumstances. It is worth noting that given 7 months had passed since the alleged incident it may have impacted on the landlord’s ability to thoroughly investigate the matter.
Given the resident had also raised concerns about noise disturbance, it was appropriate that the landlord investigated what flooring the neighbour had in its interview in December 2023. This is evidence that it took a thorough approach to his concerns about noise disturbance.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2024, appropriately apologised and offered redress for its handling of the ASB case. It set out the actions it had taken up to that point, and apologised it had not communicated its actions to the resident sooner. This showed learning and transparency. This went some way to putting right the errors in its handling of the ASB case up to that point.
The landlord provided the resident with diary sheets and contacted the police for more information, in May 2024. These actions were appropriate and in line with accepted best practice for ASB investigation. However, it is concerning that it only took these actions over a year after the resident explained he had reported an incident to the police. The resident was inconvenienced by this unreasonable delay.
It was reasonable that the landlord installed carpets in the resident’s neighbour’s property. The evidence shows the resident reported the carpets reduced the noise disturbance he experienced, which we welcome.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of June 2024, gave a detailed account of its handling of the ASB case. It showed transparency about the failings it had identified, and improvements it planned to make to its handling of ASB cases. This is evidence it adopted our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes. It is also noted that the landlord approved the resident for an internal transfer in December 2024. This is evidence it took his concerns seriously and gave appropriate consideration of the impact the situation had on him.
The landlord can only transfer a resident to another property when a suitable property becomes available within the landlord’s stock. The landlord must also consider any other residents on its transfer list who may have an even higher priority for moving. In general, the highest property is given to those who are homeless or who are facing threats of violence in their current property. Therefore, although the landlord has agreed to transfer the resident, it may take some time to arrange this and this would not necessarily indicate a failing by the landlord.
Our remedies guidance sets out that an order for compensation for £1,000 plus may be appropriate when a landlord repeatedly failed to provide the same service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £1,000 in compensation was appropriate for the period this investigation covers.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response 5 months after he complained about its handling of his reports of ASB. This was an unreasonable delay and a failing in its complaint handling. The resident was inconvenienced by an unduly long complaints process. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise, explain the reason for the delay, and offer redress to the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord adopted our dispute resolution principles of learning of outcomes and putting things right.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also delayed and was sent 54 working days after the resident complained. This was an unreasonable delay, and a further failing in its complaint handling. It is noted the delay was far shorter than the delay at stage 1. However, the resident was still inconvenienced by a further delay in what was already a lengthy complaints process. Again, the landlord apologised and offered redress for the delay, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
Our remedies guidance sets out that compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident in certain circumstances. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. The guidance states that such orders for compensation may be made when we identify failures “which adversely affected the resident”. Considering the circumstances of this case, we have determined the landlord’s offer of £175 in compensation for errors in its complaint handling was appropriate to put things right for the resident in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolved it handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to his TV aerial is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolved concerns about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the £1,000 in compensation it offered for errors in its handling of the ASB case, and the £175 in compensation it offered for errors in its complaint handling. (If it has not already done so). The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.
2. Meet with the resident to discuss his ongoing concerns about ASB from his neighbour. It should take any action deemed appropriate, in line with its ASB procedure and update the resident on the actions it is taking.
3. Contact the resident to investigate the TV aerial repair. It is recommended the landlord sets out when it plans to complete the repair if it has not already done so.