Clarion Housing Association Limited (202505645)

Back to Top

Decision

Case ID

202505645

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Clarion Housing Association

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

16 December 2025

Background

  1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat with her daughter. The resident and her daughter have vulnerabilities, which are known to the landlord. She says she has experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour in the flat above for 3 years.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her reports of ASB.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The resident’s complaint.
  2. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the effect the ASB was having on her family’s wellbeing. It accepted there were failures in its processes and communication in its final response. However, there were other failures, as we have seen no evidence that the landlord did a risk assessment or suggested what support was available.
  2. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process. We would expect the landlord to deal with the reports of ASB at the same time as dealing with the complaint. Because it did not do this, the delayed complaint response added to the delay in dealing with the ASB.

 

 

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

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows:

  • £550 already paid for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in how it dealt with reports of ASB.
  • £100 for complaint handling failures, inclusive of the £50 already offered.

The landlord must pay the additional £50 directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than 20 January 2026

2

ASB order

  • The landlord must contact the resident to discuss the reported ongoing ASB issues and provide her with an update on its position.
  • The landlord should provide a clear action plan to both us and the resident by the due date, highlighting what action it has taken and/or intends to take to help the resident, in line with its policy.
  • The landlord should review its process for risk assessments.

No later than 20 January 2026

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

21 May 2024

The resident reported ASB by her neighbour in the flat above. She said there was dog urine coming from the neighbour’s balcony, and the neighbour was throwing litter from it. The landlord issued the neighbour with a tenancy warning about pets on 6 June 2024. The resident made other reports of ASB, including noise, over the following year.

8 April 2025

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB. She said she had “endured” noise and other ASB for 3 years. She said it was affecting the mental health of both her and her daughter. She said the landlord had not checked noise levels and she felt it lacked empathy. She wanted it to investigate the noise and give another warning to her neighbour.

3 June 2025

In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. It accepted it had not followed up the resident’s ASB reports. It said it had now arranged a visit and would look at what it needed to do after this. Because of its failings, it offered £300 compensation.

4 June 2025

The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it was not about money. She wanted a peaceful home. On 19 June 2025, she added that there had been no follow–up contact from the landlord.

16 July 2025

In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the further delay in responding. It said it had assigned an officer to the resident’s case, and it would investigate the noise and her other concerns. It said legal action would be a last resort. It accepted there had been failures and offered further compensation of £300.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us the landlord had not resolved the ASB or taken any meaningful action. She said communication had been minimal and the ASB was affecting the health and well-being of her and her daughter. She wanted the landlord to assess noise and take action against 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

How the landlord dealt with reports of ASB

Finding

Service failure

What we have not investigated

  1. We have seen that the resident said there had been ASB for 3 years. She first complained to the landlord in April 2025. We usually only investigate matters brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is typically 12 months. This investigation will limit its scope to 12 months before the resident complained but may reference some earlier events for context.
  2. The resident told us she believed the ASB affected the health of her and her daughter. Although we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions caused ill health. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess this, and these are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

  1. We acknowledge that ASB cases can be difficult for a landlord to resolve. It is not our role to decide whether ASB took place. However, we can decide whether a landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably. For example, when the landlord received a report, did it assess it, offer support, and work with other agencies where appropriate.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says it has a supportive approach and will respond sensitively to reports. It says it is committed to taking effective action and using the powers available to it. On noise, it says it will not fully investigate every report but will investigate within 5 working days when reports meet its threshold. It says the threshold is:
    1. 3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person.
    2. 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person.
  3. On 21 May 2024 the resident reported the neighbour’s dogs to the landlord. She said they were urinating on the balcony, and this was dripping through the balcony and over her door. She said this meant she could not leave her home without using an umbrella. We have seen there was a similar report from the resident in January 2024 but have not seen a response to this from the landlord.
  4. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 4 June 2024 about a potential tenancy breach related to keeping pets without permission. We have not seen evidence that it contacted the resident at this time. The landlord then gave the neighbour permission to have 1 dog. However, on 5 September 2024 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour still had 3 dogs.
  5. The landlord contacted the neighbour again on 10 September 2024. The neighbour told the landlord that 2 dogs had been rehomed. The landlord told the neighbour that it had closed the case on 12 September 2024. We have not seen evidence that it told the resident that it had closed the case.
  6. We have found there were failings in how the landlord communicated with the resident at this time. It was reasonable for it to contact the neighbour in June 2024 about a possible tenancy breach. However, this was 5 months after the resident’s report in January 2024, and the landlord did not keep her updated after the report in June 2024. It also appears that it did not tell her that it had closed the case in September 2024.
  7. On 24 November 2024 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had 2 dogs that barked all the time. She said the neighbour threw a bucket of water from the balcony that went on her, and they threw things from the balcony “all the time”. She said there was loud music, shouting, and slamming doors. She said she dreaded coming home, and the noise was affecting her daughter, who took anxiety medication.
  8. We have seen that the landlord recorded this report against a different neighbour to the one the resident reported in May 2024. It appears from the issues reported by the resident, that it was neighbour the resident had reported in May 2024. It is our view that this was a record keeping failure.
  9. The landlord responded to the report on 28 November 2024 and said it had passed the report to its housing team, which would contact the resident for more information. The landlord then called the resident and neighbour on 12 December 2024. Its records say it told the neighbour to be “more mindful” of other residents. We have not seen a record of what the landlord discussed with the resident. In its final complaint response, the landlord accepted it could not evidence that it did an investigation at this time into the reports of loud music and door slamming. Because of this, we have found there was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and process.
  10. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 19 December 2024 about a tenancy breach relating to dogs. It contacted the resident the same day and told her it had contacted the neighbour. It asked her to wait 2 to 3 weeks before getting in touch again to see if there was any change. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to suggest this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord gave support or advice on what the resident could do in the meantime.
  11. On 8 January 2025 the resident told the landlord there had been no change in the neighbour’s behaviour. She sent a video of the neighbour throwing a bucket of water from the balcony. She said she wanted the situation resolved, and if the landlord did not act by 31 January 2025, she would make a complaint.
  12. We have not seen a response to the resident until 18 February 2025, when the landlord called her. It followed up the call with an email and sent diary sheets. It suggested the resident contact the local authority environmental health team. It said it would write to the neighbour. It is unclear why there was a 2-week delay in responding. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest that the resident contact environmental health and send diary sheets, even though it could have provided these earlier.
  13. However, we have seen that following the landlord’s final response, the resident said she did not receive this email. The landlord has provided us with a copy, but we cannot determine whether the resident received it. We have not seen a copy of a letter sent to the neighbour at this time.
  14. In her complaint on 8 April 2025, the resident said the noise was causing her significant distress and affected her work life (as she worked from home), wellbeing, and quality of life. She said it affected her own and her daughter’s mental health. She said the landlord had not checked noise levels and she was concerned the neighbour had hard flooring. She gave details of incidents between 15 November 2024 and 24 March 2025 and said she had evidence of these. She wanted the landlord to resolve the ASB by issuing a warning to the neighbour and investigating noise and the type of flooring in the neighbour’s flat.
  15. We have seen no evidence the landlord did anything about the resident’s reports of ASB until it sent its stage 1 complaint response on 3 June 2025. In this it said it appreciated how distressing it could be to live with unresolved ASB. It said it had logged the resident’s report, but there was no evidence it took follow-up action. It said it had raised this as a learning point to ensure it acted on future reports. It said while it had resolved the question of the neighbour’s permission to have a dog, there were other ongoing issues. In recognition of its failure to respond to the reports, it offered £250 compensation, which it credited to the resident’s rent account in line with its compensation policy. It also said it would investigate and then decide what to do next.
  16. We have found that this response was reasonable. This is because the landlord accepted there had been failures in how it dealt with the resident’s reports, offered a reasonable amount of compensation for the inconvenience caused, and outlined the next steps.
  17. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 June 2025. She said it was not about money and wanted to live in peace in her home. On 19 June 2025, the resident said she had had no contact since the landlord sent its stage 1 response.
  18. We have seen no evidence of further contact with the resident until the landlord sent its final complaint response on 16 July 2025. In this, it accepted it had:
    1. Not followed up the actions in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. Previously closed enquiries without contacting the resident.
    3. Not followed its ASB policy.
    4. Not given warnings to the neighbour.
  19. It said a neighbourhood response officer (NRO) would visit and it would provide diary sheets and contact details for the local authority. It said it was important the resident contacted the local authority, as it had statutory powers and the landlord could work with it to gather evidence. It said the NRO would work with the resident to agree an action plan. It said it would look at “informal remedies” and legal action against the neighbour was a last resort. Because of its failures, it offered further compensation of £300.
  20. We have found that the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because it apologised and set out what actions it would take. It also reasonably signposted the resident to the local authority, which had powers to deal with noise that the landlord did not have. It made it clear that it could not take legal action without evidence.
  21. However, the response was 3 months after the resident complained, and the landlord took no action in the meantime. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, and she told it several times about the effect it was having on the family’s wellbeing. We have seen no evidence that the landlord did a risk assessment or suggested what support was available to the resident. It is our view that these failings, beyond those the landlord accepted and put right, amount to service failure.
  22. The landlord told us that, after its final response, it raised an action to contact the resident. It said it contacted her on 30 July 2025, but she expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of the officer during the call. It said its notes said the resident did not want the landlord to open a formal noise case or contact the neighbour.
  23. In December 2025 the resident told us that after the landlord’s final response, it did not visit, provide diary sheets, or give access to a noise app. As the resident told the landlord she did not want it to open a formal noise complaint, this was reasonable. She told us some of the problems, including the dog urine and loud music, had stopped, but there was still noise from the neighbour.
  24. It is our view that the apology and compensation offered in the final response were reasonable in the circumstances. It was reasonable for the landlord to credit the compensation to the resident’s rent account, which was in arrears, as this was in line with its compensation policy. However, we have made an order relating to the resident’s continued concerns about how the landlord dealt with her reports of ASB.

Complaint

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained about how the landlord dealt with her reports of ASB on 8 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 April 2025, which was slightly outside its timeframe for an acknowledgement. The resident chased it for a response on 1 and 12 May 2025. On 23 May 2025, the landlord told the resident it needed longer to respond but did not give her a timescale.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 3 June 2025, which was 7 weeks after it acknowledged the complaint. It apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation. It is our view that this was reasonable compensation for the delay. However, we have seen that the landlord did nothing to deal with the resident’s concerns about ASB during this time, despite the resident asking for an update.
  4. The resident told the landlord that she did not accept its response on 4 June 2025. On 10 June 2025, the landlord told the resident it was reviewing her request to escalate and would be in touch within 10 working days. It is our view that the review was an unnecessary step, and the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days.
  5. On 14 July 2025 the resident said the lack of progress since she made her complaint on 8 April 2025 had caused distress. She said since that time she had not had any meaningful updates or support from the landlord.
  6. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 16 July 2025, which was almost 6 weeks the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay but did not offer further compensation for complaint handling.
  7. There were delays at both stages of the complaints process and limited communications. In addition, the landlord did not act in the ASB until it sent the complaint. After the stage 1 response, it did not follow-up what it said it would do. We would expect the landlord to deal with the resident’s concerns while dealing with the complaint. Instead, the landlord waited until it sent its response to tell the resident what it would do. It is our view that the delay in dealing with complaint contributed the delay in dealing with the ASB. Because of this, we have found service failure, and the landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation, inclusive of the £50 offered at stage 1, for the inconvenience caused.

Learning

  1. When a resident makes a complaint, it is our view that the landlord should try to resolve the matter at the same time it investigates the complaint. In this case there is no evidence the landlord took any meaningful action during the complaints process.

 

 

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

  1. We found the landlord’s record keeping was lacking on several occasions, such as in the lack of a risk assessment. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

  1. There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord on what it was doing about the resident’s reports of ASB. This meant the resident had to chase the landlord for updates. This highlights the importance of regular communication on reported issues.