Clarion Housing Association Limited (202313919)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313919

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord disclosing the resident’s information to third party organisations.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) case.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
On 18 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that, after reviewing their recent reports, it had opened a new ASB case. This case related to an incident in September 2022 where the resident had alleged an incident of racial hatred by another tenant.
The resident and landlord initially agreed to a meeting to discuss the incident. This was subsequently re-arranged and then indefinitely postponed.
On 2 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise it had discussed their case at a multi-agency panel.
Following this contact (and on the same day) the resident submitted their stage 1 complaint. They said the landlord’s disclosure of their personal data was a data breach and breach of their trust. They also stated they had previously asked to raise a complaint about the landlord’s hostile approach and wanted their ASB case allocating to a different member of staff. They alleged the landlord was attempting to damage their mental health.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023. It set out a timeline of its contact with the resident. It said:
1. It had previously advised the resident that it may refer their case to third party organisations. It did not accept that the disclosure of the resident’s information was a data breach. It apologised if the resident felt it had breached their trust.
2. Its approach towards the resident had not been hostile. It had respected the resident’s requests to rearrange meetings and allowed additional time for them to respond. It had provided advice and remained open and transparent about how it would investigate in line with its policy.
3. The resident had not reported incidents to the police or given consent for the landlord to do so on their behalf. They had also not provided the landlord with sufficient information to allow it to refer the resident to suitable support organisations. This had made it difficult for the landlord to investigate or take action.
4. It considered that even if the resident’s case had been dealt with by a different member of staff the same outcomes would have been reached. It would therefore not be reallocating the case.
5. It had not been able to identify any service failures. It apologised that its service had not met the resident’s expectations.
6. It would like to continue the ASB investigation and support the resident but would need the resident’s full cooperation to do so.
On 26 May 2023 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. They said the landlord’s stage 1 response had many misleading statements. They highlighted that they had not cancelled a meeting referred to by the landlord and that the landlord had not noted that it had called them to cancel the online meeting. They also repeated their concerns about the disclosure of their personal data.
The landlord issued its final response on 14 July 2023. It said its stage 1 response was fair and accurate and confirmed the timeline of the resident’s case. It confirmed it did not believe there had been a data breach or a service failing.
On 21 December 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted this service to investigate their complaint. They said they wanted the racism element to be the focal point and asked this service to investigate:
1. Why the landlord did not reply to their emails.
2. The landlord’s poor handling of their racism complaint.
3. The landlord threatening them with an injunction.
The resident said they wanted, as an outcome to their complaint, for the landlord to take action against their neighbour and to discipline the staff member who had handled their ASB case. They also wanted compensation, an apology from the landlord’s CEO, and to be rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Complaints about how an organisation in England has used personal data (including disclosures) fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The resident’s complaint about the disclosure of their personal data is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The complaint made to and investigated by the landlord did not include the matters set out in paragraph 10. They will therefore not be considered as part of this investigation. The investigation will focus on the substantive complaint matter that the resident raised with the landlord. This was the allegation that its approach towards the resident while dealing with the ASB case had been hostile.
It should be noted that even if the resident’s complaint had alleged racism by the landlord, the Ombudsman would only be able to consider how the landlord responded to those allegations. The Ombudsman would not be able to determine whether racism had occurred. That would be a matter for the courts to consider and reach a ruling on.
The resident has indicated that the landlord’s actions (or inactions) caused a significant impact to their health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reported matters and an impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent expert reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, they should seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) case.

When investigating a complaint about a landlord this Service will consider the actions of the landlord as a whole. The investigation will comment on the actions of individuals only as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. We can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to allegations of misconduct by its staff. We cannot, however, order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members or dismiss them.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out that:
1. Where ASB was the result of potential criminal activity it expected residents to report matters to the police.
2. It would support vulnerable residents in making reports to the police or would report matters to the police on the resident’s behalf.
3. It recognised the importance of working collaboratively with police and local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing law.
4. It would develop local partnerships and multi-agency working to address ASB.
5. It would provide advice and support to victims and witnesses. It would make referrals to relevant support agencies.
The landlord’s initial contact with the resident on 18 January 2023 explained that, as well as arranging a meeting with them, it would like to refer them to relevant support agencies. It also advised it could support them in making a report about the incident to the police. It explained that if a police report were not made then it could impact on its ability to investigate. This was in line with its policy and was appropriate.
When asking the resident if they would be able to meet, the landlord offered the option of telephone call or face-to-face meeting. The resident initially stated they would like a face-to-face meeting and the landlord booked this for 31 January 2023 at its offices. The resident asked on 20 January 2023 for this to be changed to an online meeting as they did not feel comfortable attending in person. The landlord made the change the same day. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take.
The resident contacted the landlord early on 31 January 2023 to advise they would not be able to attend that day. They asked if the landlord would instead be available on 15 February 2023. The landlord advised on 2 February 2023 that the revised date was acceptable.
In its contact on 2 February 2023 the landlord also apologised for having sent a SMS to the resident on the 31 January 2023. The SMS had said that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident without success and that they should accept the message as a cancellation of the meeting. The SMS further advised the landlord would be in contact to rearrange the meeting. The landlord explained it had sent this message as the member of staff who the resident had been due to meet had been off sick. It also explained that it had not been aware of the resident’s email from earlier in the day when it had sent the message. This was a reasonable explanation by the landlord.
The resident advised the landlord on 14 February 2023 that they would not be able to attend the next day due to a decline in their mental health. The landlord’s response explained that it understood the resident’s reasons and that their physical/mental wellbeing is of primary concern. It advised that it would be happy to rearrange the meeting for when the resident felt able to do so. It explained that, to refer the resident to support agencies and continue its investigation, it did need further information from the resident, but they should provide that in their own time. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
The landlord has provided copies of internal emails from 6 March 2023. These discussed making contact with the resident as it had been 3 weeks since the meeting had been postponed. The emails show the landlord was mindful of the resident’s circumstances and the need to not cause any undue distress. It decided if it had not heard from the resident by 15 March 2023 (a month from last contact) it would contact them to ask how they wanted to proceed.
There was also discussion about an email which had been sent to the resident by the landlord’s customer services team on (or around) 15 February 2023. This email had asked for further details about a new incident the resident had referred to in their email of 14 February 2023. The landlord had noted that the resident had stated this email had impacted their mental health. It was further noted that discussions with the relevant team were due to take place.
The Ombudsman considers the matters described in paragraphs 26 and 27 demonstrate the landlord was mindful that its contact with the resident could have a negative impact and was seeking to minimise this. The actions it planned to take were reasonable and, in the Ombudsman’s view, balanced the needs of the resident against progressing the ASB case in a timely manner.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 March 2023 to ask how they wished to proceed. It offered to arrange an online meeting whenever was convenient for the resident. It also repeated that it needed further details, but that the resident could provide this in their own time. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take.
The resident responded the same day to state the landlord had significantly harmed their mental heath and they would be unable to meet with it. They also advised that further ASB incidents had taken place and they were keeping a log. They said they would contact the landlord when they were well.
The landlord’s response (also on 15 March 2023) explained that it appreciated the resident needed to put their mental health first. It asked the resident to report the new incidents to the police. It explained that it is difficult to investigate ASB matters once a significant period time had passed and asked the resident, if they were able, to provide full details of the incidents. It also advised that it would not be able to refer the resident to support agencies until it had received the requested information. While the resident had said they would contact the landlord when they were well, it was reasonable for the landlord to have provided this response.
Having discussed the resident’s case at the multi-agency panel and identified actions it could take to progress the case, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident on 2 May 2023 and update them. It is noted that, in this contact, the landlord advised the resident that they could self-refer to support agencies. While the landlord had not previously advised this to the resident, there is no clear evidence that the landlord had been aware that this was an option. The resident had also not asked how they could directly refer themselves to any agencies.
The timeline the landlord included in its stage 1 response appears to be an accurate reflection of its records. The ASB case file (which the landlord provided to this service) contains a comprehensive record of contact between the resident and landlord. The Ombudsman has noted that the resident stated in their stage 2 escalation that the landlord had made misleading and defamatory statements. However, the example provided by the resident (that they did not cancel a meeting) is not supported by the available evidence.
Having considered the communications between the landlord and the resident, the Ombudsman does not consider there is evidence that the landlord acted in a heavy-handed, unsympathetic or inappropriate manner.
Given the matters reported by the resident, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to not take steps to maintain contact with them. The information the landlord provided to the resident was in line with its ASB policy and remained consistent throughout. It was reasonable for the landlord to request further, relevant details from the resident to allow it to effectively investigate the reported ASB and make appropriate referrals. The available evidence indicates the landlord was mindful of the need to minimise any negative impact on the resident and to balance that against its ability to effectively investigate.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman does not consider there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s ASB case.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it would handle initial requests from residents about a situation they were unhappy with and wished to have rectified as an enquiry. If it needed to make further enquiries to resolve the matter or the resident requested it then it would log a formal complaint.
The policy also states the landlord would acknowledge stage 1 complaints and stage 2 escalations within 10 working days. It would then aim to issue stage 1 responses within 20 working days and final responses within 40 working days.
On 31 January 2023 and 2 February 2023 the resident told the landlord they were not happy about the SMS it had sent to them. The landlord advised the resident on 7 February 2023 that it had passed the matter to the tenancy team for them to respond. It explained that if the initial attempt to resolve the issue was not successful then the resident could log a formal complaint. It provided the resident with a link to its complaint policy.
The landlord had provided a response to this matter on 2 February 2023 (as set out in paragraph 24). There is no clear evidence that the resident made a later request to have this matter logged as a formal complaint. The landlord’s actions in respect of this matter appear to have been in line with its policy and were appropriate.
The resident advised the landlord on 21 February 2023 and 15 March 2023 that they wished to complain about emails that the landlord had sent to them. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to the resident on either occasion. This was not in line with its policy and was not appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days but took 17 working days to acknowledge the stage 2 escalation. This was outside its stated timescales and was not appropriate. The landlord did provide an apology for the delay when sending its acknowledgement. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response and final response within its stated timescales. This was appropriate.
When reaching a finding the Ombudsman must consider the detrimental impact of any failures. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the detriment caused by the landlord’s complaint handling was minimal. This is because:
1. Even if the landlord’s had dealt with the resident’s complaints of 21 February 2023 and 15 March 2023 in line with its policy, given the findings reached in this report about the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, it is unlikely this would have resulted in the landlord taking a different approach towards the resident.
2. The resident was aware of this service at the time these matters were ongoing and had been able to contact us for advice and assistance if required.
3. The landlord’s final response was issued within 40 working days of their stage 2 escalation. The delay in acknowledging the escalation therefore did not impact on the overall time taken for the landlord to respond.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
The landlord did not offer any redress to the resident for its failures in complaint handling. This was not reasonable. The Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its service failure. This is in line with its policy on compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord disclosing their personal data to third party organisations is outside the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB case.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.