Clarion Housing Association Limited (202422247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422247

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since December 2016. He lives in the property, a 2-bedroom ground-floor flat, with his 2 children.
4. The resident previously brought a complaint to this Service regarding noise issues in October 2020 (our reference 202006528), which we determined in June 2021.
5. Between 4 January 2021 and 13 September 2021, the resident made 21 noise reports to the landlord. These were all categorised on the landlord’s system as antisocial behaviour (ASB). The reports concerned loud banging and thumping as well as a large dog running around, thumping and barking. Following a gap in reporting, the resident notified the landlord of further noise issues on 30 January 2024. The landlord closed the case on 28 February 2024.
6. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2024. He said he had been reporting the noise he was experiencing in his flat for 8 years. He confirmed that he had informed the landlord that the noise had affected his and his children’s mental health, and at times he had considered suicide. He noted he had also provided the landlord with letters from his GP and consultant, confirming that the noise was impacting his health and advising that he should be moved from the property. He said the landlord had ignored his concerns. As an outcome he wanted it to move him from the property or to conduct the necessary repairs to resolve the issue.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint on 4 June 2024. It said:
   1. Its records confirmed the resident had reported noise issues in August 2021. These issues had either been “ignored” or were due to the age of the building. It apologised for its lack of communication.
   2. The resident’s previous reports had been treated as noise nuisance issues. At that time, he had been told no further action would be taken and the case closed.
   3. The resident had raised issues with noise from his neighbour in January 2024. Due to his phone number not connecting, it was unable to progress the matter.
   4. After his complaint about noise transference in March 2024, a surveyor visited in May 2024. The surveyor found that there was noise transference but that it would be expensive and difficult to rectify the issue.
   5. An area of the kitchen threshold in the flat above had been identified as a potential problem. It was unable to conduct repairs as sound proofing would require significant investment.
   6. It would review its records to see if there had been similar reports from other properties. If so, it would refer the issue to its planned works team to assess if it would be viable to conduct repairs.
   7. The resident had requested a management transfer due to the noise issues in the property. He had been advised to speak to the neighbourhood response officer about the request.
   8. It apologised for the poor communication he had experienced and the fact that he had to chase the landlord for a resolution.
   9. It offered £100 compensation, comprised of:
      1. £50 for the delayed complaint response.
      2. £50 for the delay in communication.
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 June 2023. He said he rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation, as his complaint had never been about money and he only wanted a peaceful place to live with his family. He stated that the landlord had increased the rent yearly but it had not invested any money back into the building. He said he disagreed with the results of the surveyor’s visit and felt that the assessment was not able to determine the noise he was actually experiencing. He reiterated his belief that the landlord had ignored the medical advice he had provided and the health impacts on his family. He repeated his request for a management transfer.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 August 2024. It said:
   1. It had not received any noise reports from other residents in the building.
   2. It understood that the resident was unhappy with the manager’s visit in May 2024.
   3. It had installed door closers on communal doors within the building. This was to reduce noise from door slamming. It noted the resident did not feel the door closers were sufficient as the issue was with the lack of sound proofing and building design.
   4. It acknowledged that the noise was having a negative effect on the resident, and it had therefore referred the issue to its planned works team. It apologised for the delay in making the referral and advised the planned works team would contact him in 2 weeks’ time.
   5. It was unable to offer a management transfer under medical grounds. It was only able to rehouse residents in circumstances relating to antisocial behaviour, or significant building issues that could not be resolved such as leaks, condensation or damp and mould.
   6. The most appropriate course of action was for its planned works team to consider sound insulation.
   7. It offered an additional £250 compensation for the delay in referring the issue to its planned works team.
10. In August 2025, the resident informed us that he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and that he managed this through medical appointments and medication. He added that he made sustained efforts to manage his mental health issues so that he could return to work, but that the noise added unnecessary additional challenges for him. He said since February 2025, the noise had become worse. This had resulted in him sleeping on his father’s sofa on a regular basis due to the significant impact on his sleep and work. As an outcome, the resident confirmed he wanted to be moved from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. The resident’s previous complaint will not form part of this investigation. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman, has already decided upon.
12. In the landlord’s complaint response, it referred to how it handled the resident’s noise reports in 2021. Given the timeframe that had passed between those reports in 2021 and the resident’s complaint in March 2024, the landlord had the option of excluding this element of the complaint due to the time that had passed. This would have been in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) and its own complaints policy. However, as it included the 2021 noise reports in its complaint response, we consider that they should also form part of this investigation.
13. The resident has also referenced how the noise transference has impacted his and his children’s mental health. However, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because the assessment of fairness in such matters requires a level of expertise that we are unable to provide. Such matters are better suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of noise

14. The landlord’s ASB policy uses the definition of ASB under Section 2 of the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which is “conduct capable of causing alarm, harassment or distress” as well as “conduct causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises”.
15. The policy states that the landlord does not consider reports due to different lifestyles or everyday living noise to be ASB.
16. When considering the investigation of noise related ASB, the policy outlines the thresholds that must be met. These are:
    1. Three separate incidents reported in the previous 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
    2. Five separate incidents reported in the previous 28 days by the same person or member of the same household.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines a number of repair categories. The 2 relevant to this case are responsive repairs and planned works. The policy defines responsive repairs as minor building repairs through to major repairs such as flood or fire damage as well as other complex casework. Planned works are related to major component replacement delivered through planned programmes.
18. The overall objective of the landlord’s vulnerable persons policy is to ensure that its vulnerable residents receive the services and assistance they require to sustain their tenancy. To achieve this, it aims to:
    1. Record any vulnerabilities on the resident’s contact record and keep this up to date.
    2. Use all available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable.
    3. Take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management.
    4. Consider any additional needs due to the vulnerability, and, where appropriate, vary its service delivery to ensure vulnerable residents still receive the same level of service.
19. As previously noted, the resident made 21 noise reports to the landlord in 2021. While some of these reports could be considered everyday living noise, the issues with the dog would fit within the description of ASB in the landlord’s policy. The reports also met the threshold for investigation outlined in the policy. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it contacted the neighbour about the noise from the dog. There is also no evidence that it corresponded with the resident to agree an action plan or conduct a risk assessment. The absence of evidence to show that it complied with the requirements of its policy and offered relevant support to the resident was unsatisfactory.
20. The landlord’s tenancy agreements prohibit the installation of hard flooring in any part of the home without permission. We would therefore have expected it to have contacted the neighbour to investigate the type of flooring present in their property. Not conducting this step was a missed opportunity to understand the potential causes of the resident’s reports.
21. In the landlord’s evidence submission to this Service, the following was stated: “Looking at his [the resident’s] records we have 10 closed complaints from 2020-2021, some of them have very little or no information on the timelines, but I have found that some definitely related to noise ASB and living conditions.” Further, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it accepted that the resident’s communication with it in 2021 had been ignored or he had simply been told the noise was due to the age of the building and the case closed. The landlord’s approach to the noise reports was inappropriate.
22. The resident had told the landlord on 29 June 2020 that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability and how the noise he was experiencing would affect him, or if there was a requirement to tailor its service. Both these omissions demonstrate a failure on the part of the landlord to comply with its vulnerability policy.
23. In the evidence provided to us, the landlord’s vulnerability record for the resident appropriately notes that he is vulnerable. However, there is no record or description of his actual vulnerability. This is an indication of poor record keeping. It also leaves the landlord’s staff unaware of what support needs the resident might have when they are contacting him. In addition, the resident informed the landlord in his stage 1 complaint that he had considered suicide because of the noise. The available evidence does not show that it acted upon this information. It would have been appropriate to have raised it with the resident and at the very least signposted him to relevant support services.
24. The landlord’s admissions substantiate that it failed to adequately assess the resident’s noise reports in line with its policies and procedures. This was unreasonable and led to significant distress and inconvenience for the resident. It would have also left him feeling unheard and unsupported.
25. The next recorded noise report from the resident in the landlord’s records was in January 2024. In internal communications the report was said to have been on 26 January 2024, but there is no record of that specific contact in the evidence provided to us. The records show the resident reported loud music on 29 January 2024. The landlord states that it investigated the noise report, but it has not provided any evidence to support this. Due to the missing record we are unable to determine if the reports would have met the threshold for investigation. Nonetheless, it demonstrates further evidence of poor record keeping.
26. The landlord closed the resident’s case on 28 February 2024. In its stage 1 complaint response it said that it had closed the case because it could not contact the resident on his phone. It has not provided evidence to show these calls took place, indicating additional record keeping issues. The reason given for closing the case was therefore inappropriate. The landlord could have emailed the resident to advise it was trying to make contact and listed the questions it wanted answered, or asked the resident to get in touch.
27. In an email on 22 May 2024 the landlord said “It looks like this resident’s previous complaints were treated as noise nuisance complaints and dealt with by the ASB team. It is only now my team [the repairs team] have been advised about noise transfer within the properties.” However, the landlord’s internal notes from 16 July 2021 refer to a report from environmental health that confirmed the noise the resident was experiencing was due to the lack of sound proofing, not other tenants. In the resident’s complaint on 2 March 2023, he said “the building is not fit for purpose due to the serious issues with sound and general building standards”. These are only 2 references, among many, informing the landlord of the noise transference. It is therefore unclear and inappropriate that the landlord did not identify this significant aspect sooner.
28. This case shares some similarities with case 202112818, which involved the landlord and related to noise transference. After we determined that particular case in August 2023, the landlord said: “As part of our learning from this case … we have reviewed our approach and produced an action plan to enhance our procedures so that building noise cases of this kind are separated from antisocial behaviour issues. Our new complex case action group will ensure record keeping and support is co-ordinated so that prompt action is taken and the resident receives all the services they need.” Given the points in the paragraph above, it is concerning that the landlord failed to demonstrate its learning so soon after making those commitments.
29. To investigate the resident’s concerns, the landlord arranged to inspect the upstairs property, which was appropriate. However, the resident expressed his frustration that it took the landlord 9 years to visit his own property. A member of its staff undertook the inspection on 23 May 2024. At the time of the inspection the property was void. In an internal email relaying the results of the inspection, the staff member said they were unable to replicate any major noise generation. The resident indicated in his escalation request that he disagreed with the results of the inspection. He said that because the property was empty it prevented the landlord from witnessing what he was actually experiencing. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it reiterated that it had inspected, but unfairly it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about the inspection.
30. We are inclined to agree with the resident in that the inspection was not conducted in a manner that would allow the landlord to adequately assess the noise and the resulting impact upon him. To conduct the assessment and obtain reliable evidence, 2 staff members would need to be present: one in the flat above replicating the behaviours suspected of causing the noise (for example, running, walking, jumping, opening and closing doors etc). The other staff member would place themselves in the resident’s flat to note the noise generated from those actions.
31. The staff member conducting the inspection on 23 May 2024 confirmed that there was noise transference between the properties. However, without undertaking the inspection as described above, the landlord has not been able to form a robust opinion on whether the noise transference would be within acceptable limits. Without being in possession of this knowledge, all decisions that the landlord took based on the results of that sole inspection are open to question. We have therefore made an order below for it to conduct the assessment again.
32. The resident has also indicated that he provided the landlord with letters from his GP and consultant relating to the impact the noise was having on his health. An internal email by the landlord on 15 July 2024 asked if this medical evidence had been seen and considered. There is nothing to show that anyone within the organisation responded. While we understand the medical evidence may not have ultimately changed the landlord’s decisions, it was inappropriate that it did not demonstrate through records that it considered the evidence in its decision making process.
33. In the landlord’s complaint responses, it advised that it would not consider insulation works under its repairs policy, but that it would make a referral to its planned works team. The landlord belatedly made the referral, which it apologised for and offered an appropriate amount of compensation.
34. In a call to the resident on 11 September 2024, a member of the planned works team explained that they were undertaking acoustic testing on other blocks of flats and would be conducting the same tests in the resident’s block. They explained the tests would then be used to inform future projects. It was unclear from the call record what information the landlord provided regarding the likelihood of it undertaking improvement works. The resident told us that he was informed it could take up to 5 years for any work to start. However, an internal email written prior to any acoustic testing indicated that it did not believe the work would be progressed as the issue was not widespread within the block. The landlord should have informed the resident of its position to prevent unfairly raising his expectations.
35. The resident has made repeated requests for the landlord to move him from his home to another suitable property. Its management transfer policy advises that it will consider such transfers in circumstances where a customer is experiencing serious antisocial behaviour that likely creates a serious risk of harm. It goes on to state that, in a very small number of cases, it will consider a management transfer where a property is uninhabitable or unsafe due to damp, mould, or condensation.
36. The landlord’s allocations policy describes how it assesses and categorises residents requesting a transfer. The landlord categorises transfer requests as urgent, high priority, priority, and no priority, dependent on the resident’s housing need. The policy states that if there are other exceptional circumstances that prevent a tenant from remaining in their home, urgent priority must be approved by the regional Head of Operations as a management transfer.
37. In its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident that he should speak to his neighbourhood officer regarding a management transfer. The available evidence does not show if this communication happened. Nonetheless, the resident reported that the staff member who conducted the inspection at his house said that the only way he would get a management transfer was to continue to report the noise as ASB. He stated that the same staff member told him that the landlord had given his neighbour a management transfer. While we cannot verify this advice due to an absence of documentary evidence, the staff member’s alleged comments would have unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations. They would also indicate a misunderstanding among the landlord’s staff on the application of the management transfer policy.
38. We acknowledge that the landlord’s management transfer policy only allows moves in accordance with strict criteria surrounding safety–related ASB and repairs associated with damp and mould. However, being told to continue reporting the ASB to obtain a move, and then being informed that his situation did not meet the criteria, would have been both confusing and frustrating for the resident.
39. The landlord’s allocation policy allows it to consider moving residents in exceptional circumstances. It would have been reasonable for it to have explored this option given the circumstances of the case. We have therefore made an order for it to consider the resident’s request, taking into account the noise actually being experienced, his vulnerability, and the likelihood and timescales of any future works to resolve the noise transference. It should then decide if the resident’s case would meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances outlined in the allocations policy.
40. In summary, the landlord has shown that it did not adequately investigate the resident’s reports of noise in 2021. It also did not address his reports in 2024 until he made a complaint. Significantly, it did not consider the resident’s comments in his complaint around suicide or demonstrate that it had taken sufficient account of his vulnerability and medical reports in its decision making. Further, it did not conduct the inspection on 23 May 2023 in a manner that provided a true representation of the noise the resident was experiencing. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
41. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord offered £50 at stage 1 for the delay in keeping him informed. At stage 2 it offered an additional £250 for the delay in making the internal referral to the planned works team. We find the compensation offered is not sufficient to address the other shortcomings identified in this report. We have therefore made an order for an additional £250 compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord has a 2–stage complaints procedure. It commits to acknowledging complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. Stage 1 and 2 complaints will be responded to within 10 and 20 working days respectively. If the landlord requires additional time to respond, it states it will contact the complainant and agree an extension.
43. The landlord took 18 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint, which was outside the requirements of its policy. In the stage 1 acknowledgement on 2 April 2024, it said it would provide a response by 16 April 2024. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2024 advising that he had not had a response. This was unreasonable, and further evidence of the landlord not complying with the steps in its policy.
44. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 May 2024. It said that it required an extension until 28 May 2024. It then delivered the stage 1 response on 4 June 2024, 6 working days later than it advised, giving an overall response time of 62 working days. This was inappropriate and likely caused the resident further frustration. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay, which was in line with its policy.
45. The landlord responded to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint within the required timescale. It said it would provide its response on 8 July 2024. However, it did not provide the response by this date, and the resident was again required to contact it and advise that he was still waiting. Given the delays at stage 1, it was unreasonable that the landlord again failed to comply with both the timeframes and the communication requirements of its policy.
46. On 18 July 2024, the landlord said that it would provide the response the following week depending on the information it received internally. It also committed to keeping the resident informed. Having not heard from the landlord, he contacted it again on 1 August 2024 saying his response was due on 26 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the email but did not provide any further information. This was unreasonable and an additional failure to comply with its policy.
47. In its stage 2 response issued on 13 August 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the further delay (an overall response time of 50 working days), but did not offer any further compensation. After the involvement of this Service and its review of the evidence, the landlord recognised its omission. It then offered the resident a further payment of £50 for the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. While it was positive it made the additional offer, we do not consider it a sufficient amount given the earlier delays and its failure to learn from its mistakes. It was also made outside the landlord’s internal complaints process. As a result, we have made an additional award of compensation. Again, our calculation reflects the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.
48. Due to the repeated delays and poor communication, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

51. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £700 compensation. This sum is inclusive of the money already offered. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
       1. £550 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of his noise reports.
       2. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling.
52. Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must investigate the noise being experienced by the resident from the flat above. The associated inspection must involve at least 2 members of staff (one to replicate the noise in the upstairs flat and one to assess and record in writing the level of noise experienced in the resident’s property).
53. Within 8 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must assess the resident’s request to move, taking into consideration the results of the inspection as well as his vulnerability, medical reports and timescales of any planned works. A copy of the decision should be provided to the resident and this Service.