Clarion Housing Association Limited (202526532)

Decision
Case ID	202526532
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Clarion Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

1. The resident’s representative complained to the landlord about discrimination, cannabis use by neighbours and overcrowding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of discrimination.
   2. Reports of cannabis use by neighbours.
   3. Reports of overcrowding.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. The complaint about reports of discrimination was outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of cannabis use by neighbours.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of overcrowding.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of discrimination

4. The Equality Act 2010 states the court has the jurisdiction to determine whether there has been discrimination due to the protected characteristic of race. Our jurisdiction is to determine whether there has been maladministration and not discrimination. Therefore, it would be fairer and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy through the courts.

Reports of cannabis use by neighbours

5. The landlord did not appropriately advise the resident or her representative of the evidence needed for it to be able to log reports of cannabis use by neighbours.

Reports of overcrowding

6. The landlord appropriately advised and signposted the resident regarding the processes that may help to facilitate a move to address the overcrowding experienced by the household.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not appropriately log new complaint issues at stage 1 in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also did not address all the issues that the representative raised which is a breach of the Code.

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 £300 made up as follows: £100 for the missed opportunity in the landlord’s response to reports of cannabis use by neighbours. £200 for complaint handling failures. 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 31 March 2026
2	Information order The landlord must advise the resident in writing of what is required if she needs to report cannabis use by neighbours, and how it manages such reports. A copy of this correspondence must be sent to us by the due date.	No later than 31 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 November 2023	The representative made a complaint about reports of discrimination, reports of cannabis use by neighbours and the household being overcrowded. He said the household had been discriminated against as they reported being treated less favourably due to their race than another household after a sewage flood. The representative also said that neighbours were smoking cannabis. He said the household was overcrowded and requested the family be moved into a 3-bedroom property.
29 January 2024	The landlord issued its final response. It said it challenged and prevented all forms of discrimination in line with the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. The landlord said it had redecorated the neighbour’s flat as the damage to the neighbour’s property had been more extensive than to the resident’s property. It was sorry for the misunderstanding and distress caused and offered a decorating pack for the resident to carry out decorating of her home, if she wanted. The landlord said the household was eligible for a 3-bedroom property. It said its properties were let by the local council under a nomination agreement and the household did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. The landlord offered the resident advice and support about her housing options.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The representative told us that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident wanted to be moved to a 3-bedroom property. The representative asked that the resident be compensated for the problems she had experienced with the landlord.

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	Reports of discrimination
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

8. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about reports of discrimination is better dealt with by a court because we cannot effectively investigate if, due to differences in race, the household was treated differently from neighbours. We cannot make the same findings as a court can. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about reports of discrimination.

Complaint	Reports of cannabis use by neighbours
Finding	Service failure

9. Our Scheme allows us to investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and we are satisfied that the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale. The complaint handling failure is addressed in the complaint handling section below.
10. On 23 November 2023 the representative told the landlord about the resident’s neighbours smoking cannabis. He said the neighbour’s drug use was negatively affecting the household’s wellbeing.
11. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that residents should report any illegal drug use to the police. The landlord told us on 3 September 2025 that any reports concerning the smell of cannabis are only logged on its database if a crime reference number is provided at the time of reporting. However, there was no evidence to show that these 2 pieces of information had been told to the resident or her representative.
12. It would have been appropriate to have told the resident or her representative this important information. This would have enabled them to correctly report the matters and have managed their expectations. The landlord did not do this. This was a missed opportunity.
13. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of up to £100 are appropriate to put right findings of service failure. In ordering £100 compensation, we have considered the missed opportunity for the landlord to correctly advise the resident or her representative of the required processes to report the use of cannabis by neighbours.

Complaint	Reports of overcrowding
Finding	No maladministration

14. On 23 November 2023 the representative told the landlord that the household of 2 adults and 2 children were overcrowded in a 2-bedroom property. He said that the teenager had one bedroom and the resident and her youngest child shared a bed and the resident’s husband slept on the floor. The representative requested that the household be moved into a 3-bedroom property.
15. In its response dated 29 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the household was overcrowded and was eligible for a 3-bedroom property. However, it explained there was a shortage of housing in the area and demand exceeded supply.
16. The landlord said it had considered the household for a management transfer, but their circumstances did not meet the criteria. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider a management transfer. The landlord’s decision was appropriate as the household’s circumstances did not meet the criteria listed in the landlord’s management transfer policy.
17. The landlord explained there was a nominations agreement in place with the local council and appropriately signposted the resident to the local council’s housing options team. It said in its response that it would arrange to support the resident with registering for the local council’s housing list. The landlord offered extra support for the resident via its tenancy sustainment team which was reasonable and demonstrated a willingness to help.
18. It also signposted the resident to other options available to her including mutual exchanges and the landlord’s new transfer system.
19. We are satisfied that the landlord took the appropriate steps to signpost and support the resident with processes that may help to facilitate a move to address the overcrowding experienced by the household. This was reasonable as the supply of 3-bedroom properties in the area was a matter outside of the control of the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

20. During ongoing correspondence about a previous complaint, in a letter dated 23 November 2023, the representative raised some new complaint matters with the landlord. The new matters were regarding reports of discrimination, cannabis smoking by neighbours and overcrowding.
21. As these matters had not formed part of the previous complaint, the landlord should have logged a new stage 1 complaint to investigate them, in line with its complaints policy and the Code. It did not do this.
22. Instead, it issued a “peer review addendum” on 29 January 2024. This was not appropriate and was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
23. The addendum response was issued 44 working days after the date of the representative’s correspondence. This exceeded any timeframes listed in its complaints policy or the Code.
24. The landlord told us that the addendum was its final response to the complaints of reports of discrimination, cannabis smoking by the neighbours and overcrowding. This prevented these matters being escalated and going through a 2-stage complaint procedure as detailed in its complaints policy and the Code.
25. The landlord did not address all the points the representative had raised. It missed out the reports of cannabis smoking by neighbours. This was not in line with the Code which states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
26. We have ordered the landlord to award the resident £200 compensation for complaint handling failures. This is because the landlord did not answer all the points raised in the complaint, and it did not correctly log the new matters as a stage 1 complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

27. We encourage the landlord to keep better records of the complaint definitions raised and ensure that all these matters are addressed in the appropriate stage response, in line with the Code.