Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425493)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425493

Clarion Housing Association Limited

27 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property which is a flat. The flat opens out onto a courtyard shared with other residents where they keep their bins.
  2. The resident had made historical reports of ASB from her neighbour from the beginning of 2021. These had involved her neighbour keeping their bins close to her front door, which had led to disputes and verbal altercations with the neighbour. The resident made a historical complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB, which completed its complaints procedure in May 2022. The complaint was not upheld.
  3. The resident made a further stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 3 March 2023. She said she was unhappy with its handling of her reports of her neighbour placing their bins in front of her property and blocking the communal gate. The resident said that she felt the neighbour was doing this to intimidate her and was part of a pattern of ASB that had started in 2021.
  4. On 15 March 2023 she reported to the landlord that her neighbour had verbally attacked her daughter and sent a video of the incident to the landlord. It spoke to the resident, the neighbour and the police about the incident on 12 April 2023.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 27 April 2023. It addressed previous reports from the resident concerning bin placement and dog fouling. It also confirmed that it had spoken to the resident about use of CCTV cameras. The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s recent ASB reports promptly and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience. It also offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its late stage 1 complaint response.
  6. On 16 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its response to her report of verbal abuse from the neighbour. She said she was unhappy that it had not responded to several requests for calls back and it had not provided an ASB incident diary to her. The resident also wanted compensation for the effect on her and her family. The resident acknowledged that her reports of dog fouling were concluded in November 2022 when the landlord offered mediation between her and her neighbour. She said she wanted it to install CCTV to gain evidence of any ASB. The resident said she continued to be unhappy because the neighbour’s bins had been returned to a position which was too close to her front door which was leading to “stress and anxiety” for her. She added that she had attempted to raise a stage 1 complaint on 3 January 2023, but the landlord had not followed up on this.
  7. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2023. It addressed the points the resident disputed and confirmed that it would not be installing CCTV. The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in progressing the ASB case and communicating with the resident. It offered £800 to recognise the inconvenience she experienced, in addition to the £100 it offered at stage 1. It said it proposed to inspect the communal courtyard to find a solution for the bins which may resolve the neighbour dispute.
  8. The landlord issued a tenancy breach warning letter to the neighbour on 10 August 2023. It inspected the communal courtyard on 14 September 2023 and carried out a consultation with residents about the bins in October 2023.
  9. On 9 March 2024 the resident told us that she continued to be unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB from her neighbour. She said she had not been informed of the outcome of the bin consultation. The resident said the consultation had not led to her neighbour’s bins being moved.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. The Ombudsman made a decision on the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB up until May 2022. In line with the Scheme, we will not make a determination on any events occurring up to that date as we have already decided on them. However, we may refer to our findings from that investigation if they are relevant to our assessment of the new complaint. We may also describe some historical events to provide context to the report.

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

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy provides examples of behaviours which it considers to be ASB. This includes harassment, which may include verbal abuse. It also includes ‘low level’ ASB, such as “minor disputes between neighbours”, when it is it “persistent and deliberate” and having a “harmful effect on a person”. The policy says that the landlord will explain to residents that it is their responsibility to resolve neighbour disputes and will offer mediation if appropriate. It also says it will consider a range of interventions to resolve incidents of ASB.
  2. It is outside our role to determine whether there was ASB. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB, and whether it acted in line with its polices and the law.
  3. In line with its ASB policy above, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat the resident’s reports of her neighbour’s behaviour as ASB. However, there were failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. The landlord has not provided evidence of how it dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB related to the position of the neighbour’s bins or dog fouling from May 2022 onwards, despite the Ombudsman’s request for evidence about this. This is a record keeping failure. The landlord should have clear and easily accessible records of its ASB investigations. When events are disputed and there is no evidence of the landlord’s actions, we may be unable to determine that it acted appropriately.
  4. In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord worked with local councillors to resolve the dog fouling issue and offered mediation to the resident and her neighbour to resolve this. There is no evidence available which shows that the neighbour was responsible for the dog fouling. When dog fouling occurs it can be difficult to know who is responsible if there are no witnesses or CCTV. It appears that the landlord offered a reasonable and proportionate resolution to the reported ASB. However, due to the lack of records, we cannot determine if it took appropriate actions within a reasonable time or whether it communicated with the resident about the ASB reports.
  5. When the resident reported the incident of verbal abuse from her neighbour on 15 March 2023, the landlord should have opened an ASB case and spoken to the resident to tell her what it may be able to do. This may take the form of an action plan. It would have also been reasonable for the landlord to speak to the neighbour to discuss the allegations and provide a way for the resident to provide evidence of any further ASB, such as by providing ASB diary sheets. It should have taken these actions in a timely manner, in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations, which are set out in our ASB factsheet on our website. However, the landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s report. This was a failing which may have caused her distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord’s ASB case file showed that it opened an ASB case on 17 March 2023. However, it did not speak to the resident or the neighbour about the ASB incident until 12 April 2024, almost a month later. This was after the resident chased the landlord for a response on 5 occasions. Given the distress the resident reported from the incident, this was an unreasonably long time. The delay may have led to her feeling ignored by the landlord, which may have caused her further distress.
  7. The landlord’s own internal notes noted that it had failed to progress the ASB case effectively. Its internal review of the case on 21 June 2023 showed that it had failed to take any action. There was no evidence the landlord reviewed the footage the resident submitted on 15 March 2023 until 20 July 2023, 4 months later. This was a significant delay which led to it not taking further action in a reasonable time. This likely prolonged the resident’s distress.
  8. The landlord acknowledged its delay in the handling of the resident’s ASB case in its final complaint response on 21 July 2023. It was positive that it offered compensation to recognise this. It then issued a warning letter to the neighbour and ASB diary sheets to the resident within a reasonable period, on 10 August 2023. The landlord also acted within a reasonable period to inspect the communal area on 14 September 2023 and consult with neighbours about bin placement on 24 October 2023. While the landlord’s inspection took longer than the 28 days stated in its final complaint response, this was not a significant delay. This showed that the landlord progressed the ASB case within reasonable timeframes after its final complaint response.
  9. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for declining to install CCTV by explaining that the resident had her own camera which could capture evidence of ASB. It also noted that other neighbours had cameras in the area. The Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to take steps to install CCTV where it was not a practical expense and when would not be a clear benefit to all residents. Social landlords have limited funds and they have a duty to make the best use of their funds to benefit all residents.
  10. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to resolve the dispute with the bins by inspecting the area and arranging a consultation with residents. This was a reasonable and pragmatic approach. We note that the resident continues to be unhappy with the location of the neighbour’s bins. There is no evidence that the neighbour’s bin obstructed the resident’s front door. Her concern about the bin location was that it may lead to abusive behaviour from the neighbour. The landlord reasonably addressed this with the warning letter it sent to the neighbour to tell them that their behaviour may be a breach of tenancy. This was a proportionate step by the landlord which addressed both the incident of verbal abuse and the neighbour dispute about the bins. It was reasonable that the landlord did not offer mediation given this had been offered previously and declined by both parties.
  11. The resident was unhappy with the consultation process regarding the bins as she said she was not made aware of the outcome at the time. She also expressed concern that leaving the bins where they were, would result in more ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out a consultation as it would be unfair for it to move the bins, which would affect all the residents in the area without consulting them first. The landlord needed to balance the resident’s ASB concerns with the needs and preferences of other residents. The landlord was entitled to decide following consultation that it would leave the bins where they were. The Ombudsman is not in a position to overturn this decision as we cannot make decisions which could negatively affect other residents without their consent.
  12. The landlord should have made the resident aware of the outcome of the consultation, as it said it would in its final response to the complaint. Its failure to do so would have caused inconvenience to the resident as she was left not knowing what would happen regarding the bins. We have considered this when assessing the landlord’s offer of compensation.
  13. The landlord’s offer of £850 compensation in total for its ASB handling failures was reasonable. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available on our website, says that awards of compensation of over £600 are appropriate when a landlord’s failures have had a significant effect. This may include a physical or emotional effect on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s offer was in line with our guidance and proportionately recognises that its failings caused the resident and her family significant distress.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. All landlords who are members of the Scheme must comply with the Code which sets out our expectations for best practice in complaint handling. The Code says landlords should have a 2 stage complaints process. They should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. On 16 May and 15 June 2023, the resident said that her complaint about the landlord’s handling of bin-related ASB and her report of a verbal attack on her daughter were separate complaints. Given that both issues were related to her reports of ASB from her neighbour, it was reasonable for the landlord to respond to both issues in a single complaint response. There was no evidence that this led to any negative impact for the resident.
  3. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 3 March 2023. It responded to her stage 1 complaint on 27 April 2023. This was after 38 working days. This was significantly longer than the timeframe set out in the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy. The delay would have inconvenienced the resident and it was positive that the landlord recognised this and offered appropriate compensation.
  4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1complaint response on 16 May 2023. It should have acknowledge this as a request to escalate her complaint. There was no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication as an escalation request. The landlord then issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 21 July 2023. This was after 48 working days. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this was late and offer appropriate compensation.
  5. The landlord recognised that its stage 1 and final stage complaint responses were late. However, it did not respond to the resident’s point that she had first attempted to raise a stage 1 complaint on 3 January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of this earlier complaint. Nevertheless, we would expect the landlord to respond to all the points the resident raised in her complaint. This was a failure in its complaint handling.
  6. Although the landlord did not recognise all of its complaint handling failures, it offered a reasonable amount of compensation of £100 in total. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. Our guidance says that awards of compensation of between £50 and £100 are appropriate when there were failings by the landlord but the failures were of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord’s delays in responding to the complaint did not affect the overall outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints concerning its handling of her:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the total of £1,000 compensation it offered in its stage 1 and final complaint responses. This is made up of:
    1. £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its late complaint responses.