Clarion Housing Association Limited (202417054)

Decision
Case ID	202417054
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow. She has several mental health conditions. She complained her neighbour was playing loud music, groped her and was verbally abusive. She also reported that the neighbour damaged her car and that they were fly tipping near her property.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of ASB

The landlord failed to consider whether it should have completed a risk assessment. This led to a delay in its offer of support. It also delayed in gathering evidence relating to noise nuisance.
The landlord accepted it had not contacted her in a timely manner and there was a period of inactivity on the case. It also accepted it had not followed through with all of the agreed actions in the action plan.
The landlord appropriately completed an action plan, chased the police for updates and kept the resident updated. It also managed expectations about communication, eviction processes and the need for evidence in ASB cases.

The complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate.

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 identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider completing a risk assessment sooner. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 November 2025
3	Training order The landlord must remind staff about the importance of applying its policies accurately when dealing with ASB cases. This includes the application of its vulnerable adult and safeguarding policy when relevant. It should provide us with evidence that this has been done.	No later than 19 November 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 30 January 2024 and 31 May 2024	The resident made several reports that her neighbour had: Groped her and sent her inappropriate text messages. Caused damage to her car. Been verbally aggressive with her before and after she accused them of damaging her car. Intentionally played loud music. Fly-tipped near her home. Stared at her house. “Messed up” the pathway. Caused nuisance by using a leaf blower. Damaged the communal gate.
6 June 2024	The resident complained that the landlord was not taking her reports of ASB seriously or dealing with them. She also felt it was not following its vulnerable adult policy.
27 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. Its stated it had communicated with the resident and updated her throughout the process. It said it had: Created an action plan. Asked her to download a noise app. Applied for police disclosure. Discussed the process for installation of closed circuit television (CCTV). Informed her about the eviction process. Chased the police for updates.
27 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She felt the landlord was not being transparent as the police told her the case was with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Whereas the landlord said the police had informed it nothing would come of the case. She felt the neighbour had also breached their tenancy, but the landlord was not doing anything about this. She said the matter was affecting her mental health, because the neighbour was living so close to her.
24 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had asked the resident twice whether she had support in place and whether she wanted a referral, but she declined this offer. The tenancy specialist did not consider her to meet the criteria for a safeguarding referral or consideration at the vulnerable adult panel. However, it accepted it: Should have contacted her after 22 May 2024, to ensure she had support. Should have confirmed with her that she was receiving victim support offered by the police. Did not contact her within its published timescales on 5 occasions. Had not progressed the case between 6 June 2024 and 18 July 2024. Did not review the text message evidence she provided. It said it would need to wait for the outcome of the police investigation before deciding what to do next. It offered compensation of £250.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She is unhappy that the landlord has not evicted her neighbour.

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	The handling of ASB
Finding	Service failure

Following the resident’s reports made in February 2024, the landlord appropriately spoke to her. It created an action plan in line with its ASB policy and sent the resident a copy of this.
The action plan detailed the landlord would liaise with the police, contact neighbours and review photo evidence. It also explained it would contact the resident in 2 weeks to update her and discuss the next steps. While these were appropriate steps, the landlord did not refer the resident to relevant support agencies. It has not provided us with a risk assessment either, so it is not clear if it completed one. The landlord’s ASB policy does not mention that it should complete a risk assessment. However, given the resident’s recorded vulnerabilities and the nature of the ASB, it should have considered whether it was appropriate to complete one. Had it done so, an assessment would have informed it what support could and should be offered, much sooner.
Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord missed the opportunity to follow its safeguarding policy. This would have allowed it to offer relevant support at an earlier stage which it had a duty to do.
The landlord said the resident declined its offer to refer her to support services at a meeting in May 2024. It did not make any further offer of support. However, in its stage 2 response it accepted it should have checked with her to ensure her position had not changed.
The landlord also recognised that it failed to follow through with one of its action plan points which was to review the photo evidence which the resident provided.
The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the wording in the action plan. It said the letter was a standard template, but the content would reflect the agreed actions. It also explained the next steps which included applying for police disclosure. It promptly completed and submitted the application 2 days later and updated her.
The landlord reasonably explained the process involved with evictions, which was relevant because it was an outcome that the resident was seeking. This allowed it to manage the resident’s expectations about what it could and could not do.
Despite a lack of meaningful police updates, the landlord continued to chase the police and update the resident accordingly. This showed it took her concerns seriously. It also met with her on 22 May 2024 following her concerns about how it was handling the issues.It pointed out that it’s actions in relation to the neighbour would depend on how the police investigation went. While this would have been frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the police to complete their investigation. Understandably, knowing whether or notthe neighbour was charged would indicate what action it could take. This was also in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord explained its process of dealing with ASB reports and its follow up calls. This was due to the resident calling every 2 days. Instead, it aimed for weekly updates unless something urgent happened. This was a reasonable approach to manage the resident’s expectations and balance this against its limited resources.
The resident also raised reports of loud noise from the same neighbour. This was logged in January 2024 and twice in March 2024. In March 2024, the landlord asked the resident to download the noise app so that it could gather evidence. It is not clear why this was not done earlier in the process as this was an important step in gathering evidence. According to its ASB policy, there is no threshold for noise complaints where the resident is particularly vulnerable. On this basis it could have given the resident the option to record data on the noise app when it was first reported.
On 26 April 2024, the landlord told the resident it had enough evidence relating to her noise concerns. As a result on 22 May 2024 and 5 July 2024, it appropriately told the neighbour to stop the behaviour relating to the reports of loud noise.
The landlord responded to other reports relating to fly tipping, leaf blowing, staring, gatedamage and “mess” on the pathway. It reminded the resident to be mindful of listening to rumours and gossip. It told the resident that it needed clear evidenceto corroborate the reports before it could take action. It also explained that she would need to get permission before installing CCTV. This was in line with its ASB policy. While this may have been frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain why it could not take specific action.
The landlord’s offer of compensation included £100 for delayed responses to the resident about her ASB reports. It offered £100 for not completing all actions on the action plan and £50 for the period of inactivity on the case. We will order a further £150 for its failure to consider completing a risk assessment at the earliest opportunity given the resident’s vulnerabilities. This includes missed opportunities to properly and regularly assess her circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which had an adverse affect on the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant version of the Code in this case is the April 2024 edition.
The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It acknowledged the complaint in 4 working days. It provided its stage 1 response in 11 working days on 27 June 2024. The resident chased the landlord for an update on the complaint on 24 June 2024. It was appropriate for it to explain it needed a further 10 days. While the stage 1 response was 1 day outside of the timescale, it was within the overall 15-day timescale. We have not identified any detrimental impact of this.
The landlord delayed in acknowledging the resident’s escalation request by 6 working days. It provided its stage 2 response 8 working days later on 24 July 2024. Again, while there was a delay in providing an acknowledgment to the complaint, its response was within the overall timescale of 25 days to acknowledge and respond to a complaint. Similarly, we have not identified any detriment caused by the delay of the acknowledgement.
As a result, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

It is positive that the landlord recognised the need for regular auditing of cases, because of its failure to assess all action plan points.
The landlord should ensure it is following its policies and procedures which are aimed at protecting and supporting its vulnerable tenants.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any concerns with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was good. It was positive that it managed her expectations about communication when contact was frequent. We would encourage it to strengthen this further by committing to a regular catch up where the resident can discuss her concerns, if it has not done so already. It is also positive that it recognised some areas for improvement such as reminding teams about the importance of contacting customers within agreed timescales.