We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202443991)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443991

Clarion Housing Association Limited

26 September 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:
    1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in her 2-bedroom flat since July 2024. At the time of the complaint, she lived with her 2 young children and her partner.
  2. Around 18 November 2024 the resident reported that one of the landlord’s previous tenants came to her home with a bat and threw liquid in her partner’s face. The landlord created an action plan and told the resident to report any further incidents to it and the police. It explained that it would contact her again in 10 working days for an update.
  3. The resident subsequently made a complaint to the landlord on or around 6 December 2024. She explained that it had told her that it would contact her by 3 December 2024 which it had not. She stated that it had not handled her report of ASB with “urgency and care”. She expressed concern about her housing situation and that she wished for the landlord to provide her with a “safe living environment”.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 December 2024. It said:
    1. it was awaiting disclosure from the police so it could plan its next actions and advise her further.
    2. it had not responded to the resident’s emails and calls for an update. It offered the resident £100 for this failing.
    3. it would put measures in place for it to contact the resident on a regular basis by telephone or email.
  5. The resident reported a further ASB incident in December 2024. On the morning of 20 January 2024, the landlord told the resident that it had asked the police whether it supported a management move. Later, on the same day it refused her request stating that it was “unable to confirm that the resident was at serious risk of harm based on the information from the police”. Around this time the resident appealed the decision.
  6. On 21 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She said:
    1. the landlord “continuously ignored” her calls and emails. It had contacted her on 18 December 2024 but was promised she would be contacted on 3 December 2024. She said the “list [went] on” and that she could provide a timeline of events.
    2. a further ASB incident occurred in December 2024 involving the perpetrator’s partner. Although the risk to her and her family remained the same, the landlord had rejected her management transfer application. She met the criteria for the management move because she was a victim of a crime and this was highlighted in the landlord’s policy.
    3. she was unable to secure support needed for the move. She explained Victim Support was at capacity so was unable to take her case. The police had informed her that it did not write support letters for people in her circumstances. However, it had not updated the landlord about the risk that she and her family were in.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 February 2025. It said:
    1. following its stage 1 investigation, it had assigned a housing liaison to the resident’s case. This was to provide additional support and to ensure that the resident was kept informed about the progress of her case.
    2. it would reassess the resident’s management transfer request.
  8. In March 2025 the landlord issued its final decision in relation to the management transfer request. It said that its risk assessment determined that the resident and her family were at “medium” risk. It had not received written confirmation from any agencies stating that she or her family were at serious risk of harm. Therefore, it was unable to uphold her appeal and approve her management transfer request.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s appeal decision and its final response. Therefore, she referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said that she was at a “disadvantage” because she had not been able to obtain a supporting letter from Victim Support. She explained that the landlord acknowledged that the risk of harm had increased during the time of her complaint and it failed to respond to her communication on numerous occasions.

Assessment and findings

Reports of ASB

  1. When the resident reported the ASB incident in mid-November 2024, the landlord appropriately created an action plan. It also advised her to report further incidents to the police. This was appropriate given the nature of the report she had made. However, it told the resident that it would contact her in 10 working days to update her, which it failed to do. The evidence suggests a risk assessment was carried out, which is good practice. However, we have not been provided with a copy of it. Therefore whether it carried one around this time is unclear.
  2. The available evidence shows that its response was delayed by approximately 12 working days. The landlord also failed to respond to her further contact during this time. This reason for this is unclear. However, it is evident that this caused the resident distress and inconvenience, particularly because she considered she was at risk of harm.
  3. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its lack of communication in its stage 1 response. It also offered the resident £100 compensation. Given the delay, and that the resident was concerned that she was at risk of harm during this time, the compensation was proportionate to reflect the distress and inconvenience she was caused.
  4. In her escalated complaint, the resident said that there were further incidents where she considered the landlord’s communication was unsatisfactory. She told the landlord that she could provide a timeline of events to support her concerns. The evidence does not suggest that the landlord requested the timeline, or that it was provided by the resident.
  5. Nevertheless, when the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it said that it had assigned a housing liaison to the resident to provide additional support after it issued its stage 1 response. This was to ensure that the resident was kept informed. This was reasonable and a pragmatic solution to the concerns the resident had raised about a lack of contact.
  6. That said, the landlord’s response did not demonstrate that it meaningfully investigated the resident’s concerns regarding a lack of communication. For instance, it provided no comment on whether its communication during the period in question had been appropriate or not. It also failed to set out the communication it had received from the resident, and any details of its responses.
  7. It is noted that the resident did not highlight any particular incidents as part of her escalation request. However, she had advised that she could provide this evidence, if required. It is unclear why the landlord did not request this information from the resident. Taking such action would have been proportionate given the concerns that were raised. In particular as she had stated that it did not treat her situation with urgency and care. That it did not meant that it missed an opportunity to review its handling of the matter against its relevant policies and reasonably put any failings identified fully right. It also failed to engaged with the resident’s concerns in a meaningful way.
  8. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its communication in relation to her reports of ASB. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation in relation to this failing.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. There is no obligation on a landlord to agree to a management transfer. Such transfers are discretionary and will depend on the individual circumstances. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether or not a move should have been agreed by the landlord. Rather, our role is to review the evidence and determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and exercised its discretion in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s management transfer policy states:
    1. it would consider moving a resident where ASB or harassment puts them at risk of serious harm.
    2. management transfers should only be considered if the police or other specialist professional agencies confirm in writing that there is a serious risk of harm or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for them to continue living at the property.
  3. After learning of the incident, the landlord contacted the police at the beginning of December 2024 for further information. It asked specifically for information in relation to the level of risk posed, and if there were any safeguarding concerns. While the police confirmed the details of the incident and that the alleged perpetrator had been released on bail, it did not respond to the specific questions asked by the landlord.
  4. Subsequently the landlord told the resident on 20 January 2025 that it had asked the police whether it would support her transfer request. It said that it would continue to chase it for a response. This was reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence that the police responded on this day or at all.
  5. However, later in the day on 20 January 2025 the landlord informed the resident by email that it had refused her management transfer request. It stated it had refused the request because it was unable to confirm that she was at serious risk based on the response the police had provided. While unclear, the evidence suggests that the landlord had based its decision on the police disclosure it received prior to the 20 January 2025 and or the information in received in early December 2024.
  6. We have not been provided with the official police disclosure. Therefore, it is unclear what information, if any, this contained in relation to the level of risk and whether the resident should be moved. The landlord should reasonably have provided us with a copy of the disclosure – and any other evidence it received from the police – to demonstrate that it had fully considered any comments that related to the resident’s request to be moved. As it has not, it has failed to demonstrate that exercised its discretion fairly. It is also noted that the landlord was waiting for information from the policy on 20 January 2025. It is therefore unclear what evidence it did rely on when reaching its decision, and why it felt able to make one in the knowledge that information was outstanding.
  7. In her escalated complaint the resident raised concerns that the landlord had refused her original management transfer request and her appeal. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it would reassess the risks and her request to be moved. This was reasonable.
  8. In its March 2025 review the landlord reiterated that it had not received any written confirmation that the resident was at serious risk of harm from the relevant agencies as stated in its policy. Whether the police told the landlord that it was unable to support the move is unclear. If this was the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained this to the resident. This would have managed her expectations and demonstrated that it appropriately sought the relevant information from the police. Especially as it had already told her that it was seeking this information from it.
  9. If the police had not responded specifically to the questions it had posed in relation to risk, or a need to be moved, it would have been reasonable for it to have also explained this in its response. By providing such transparency, it would have demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s request seriously.
  10. Furthermore, if the police had not responded, it would have been appropriate for it to consider whether it needed to escalate its request – and if additional time was needed to reach a decision. We have seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord took reasonable steps to obtain a response from the police during the time leading up to its review. Given that it had already started the process of requesting information we would expect it to chase the police until a satisfactory response was received.
  11. When declining her request, the landlord explained that its recent risk assessment considered the resident was at “medium” risk (it was previously “low”). While unclear, it suggests that assessment may have been relied upon to refuse the management transfer in absence of the written confirmation from agencies that the resident was at serious risk of harm. If this was the case, it could have made this clearer to the resident. This may have mitigated further distress and inconvenience caused to her as she considered that the reasons it had refused her application was because it did not have any supporting evidence from the agencies.
  12. Overall, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to ascertain whether the police would support the resident’s request for a management transfer. Its March 2025 final appeal decision lacked sufficient detail and structure. This meant that it had not demonstrated to the resident that its decision was based on accurate information and that it had taken the specific circumstances into consideration.
  13. It is noted that its decision may not have differed if it carried out the above. However, as it failed to do so, it has failed to demonstrated that it has exercised its discretion fairly in considering the resident’s request for a management transfer by taking all of the circumstances affecting the resident into account. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience that may have been avoided. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. A series of orders have therefore been made aimed at putting things right.
  14. In August 2025 the resident told this Service that the ASB is ongoing. She explained that she provided a supporting letter from Victim Support to the landlord for further consideration. It is unclear whether the landlord has had a chance to review this letter. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for it to contact the resident to discuss this further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £350 compensation, which is comprised of:
      1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about its communication in relation to her reports of ASB.
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
    3. pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response if it has not done so already.
    4. remind staff that their management transfer refusal decisions and appeals should be clear and transparent. They should also be structured to demonstrate what actions the landlord has taken to reach its decision, and explain how the decision has been reached with reference to its policy.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contact the resident to discuss:
    1. her current reports of ASB and whether she has any concerns about its communication in relation to this. If she does, it should take reasonable steps to improve and monitor the matter. Where relevant it should consider agreeing a method and frequency of communication with the resident.
    2. whether she would like to reapply for a management transfer, if she has not already done so. If the resident does wish to reapply for a transfer, the landlord should consider assessing her current situation along with the letter from Victim Support in line with its policy. If a written statement of support from the police is also needed, the landlord should make reasonable efforts to obtain a response from it. Its decision to the resident should clearly demonstrate what steps it has taken that has led to its decision. If it is unable to consider a new request, it should explain this to the resident.