Clarion Housing Association Limited (202416613)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat in a block. She reported to the landlord multiple incidents of antisocial behaviour by her neighbour, including harassment, loud noise, and verbal abuse.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of reports of ASB.
5. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

6. The landlord relied on repeated warnings instead of escalating action and failed to manage risk effectively. Its compensation offer also fell short of addressing the failures identified in this report.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s offer of compensation for its delayed complaint responses was fair and proportionate.

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.

Recommendation

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.

8. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
9. The resident reported ASB and provided evidence, including diary sheets and video doorbell footage from April to December 2023. The reports described harassment, such as verbal and racial abuse, and fighting and shouting in communal areas.

10. Each time, the landlord responded appropriately and followed good practice by creating action plans. These actions included visiting the neighbour, issuing warning letters, and working with the police in line with its ASB policy. However, the landlord did not carry out a risk assessment at any stage, which we have highlighted as a learning point.
11. In October 2023, the landlord issued the neighbour a final warning. On 9 December 2023, the resident reported further ASB from the neighbour’s property. The landlord told her it was preparing a file for its legal team, but it is unclear if this happened.
12. In January 2024, the landlord reviewed the resident’s video doorbell footage and noted incidents after the final warning, including loud arguments and rude gestures toward the resident. Subsequently, the landlord issued the neighbour an eviction notice.
13. The evidence shows the notice should have included ASB, but this did not happen because of an internal miscommunication. This caused distress to the resident, who believed the landlord was acting on her reports and expected the neighbour’s eviction by June 2024.
14. The resident’s distress increased when she told the landlord on 19 March 2024 that the police had cautioned her neighbour for racially aggravated harassment. The landlord did not act on this information until September 2024, when it reopened the case. Only then did the landlord contact the police. This delay was unreasonable, given the seriousness of the report. It was also another missed chance to carry out a risk assessment, which could have helped the landlord decide the most appropriate next steps.
15. In November 2024, the police told the landlord that the neighbour had confessed to the offence and received a caution. The landlord considered what action to take and decided to issue a final warning and close the case, as the resident had reported no new incidents. This decision caused further distress to the resident, who felt the landlord had already given too many warnings.
16. The landlord’s approach was inconsistent. Although it aimed to act proportionately, its response after the racial harassment incident was too cautious, given the previous warnings and the increased risk.
17. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take enforcement action when the police confirm racial harassment. National guidance also classifies hate-related incidents as high risk. Issuing another final warning did not reflect the seriousness of this offence. While eviction was not the only option, the landlord’s response fell below the expected standard in its policy.
18. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the miscommunication about the eviction notice in January 2024 and offered £150 compensation. However, this was not enough to put things right. This error undermined the strength of the evidence, raised the resident’s expectations, and likely disrupted the enforcement process. Repeated final warnings suggest its case strategy lacked clarity, and there is no evidence that it considered the risk to the resident.
19. Taken together, these failings amount to maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance for failings that adversely affect a resident. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out a learning review.

20. The landlord took 67 working days to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was considerably outside its stage 1 policy timescale. It also took 38 working days to respond at stage 2, exceeding its 20-working-day policy timescale. This was also contrary to our Complaint Handling Code.
21. However, the landlord acknowledged these delays, apologised, and offered a total of £200 compensation. The remedy was fair and addressed the frustration caused by its delayed complaint responses. The landlord should pay this amount if it has not already done so.

Learning

22. The landlord should carry out risk assessments promptly, especially when serious ASB or hate-related incidents are reported.
23. The landlord should consider escalating enforcement action instead of issuing repeated warnings.
24. The landlord should ensure communication about legal action and eviction notices is accurate and clear.
25. The landlord should develop a robust case strategy to maintain the enforcement process and evidential chain.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s record-keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

27. Although there was miscommunication about the eviction notice, overall, the landlord kept the resident informed of the actions taken.