Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202223711)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223711

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of noise disturbance.
    2. The resident’s request for repairs.
    3. Reports of ants at the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived at the property, which is a flat, since 2020.
  2. In 2020, the resident reported noise disturbance from the upstairs flat. In early 2024, the resident reported issues with her heating system and an infestation of ants. The landlord investigated each report.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord through the Service on 11 July 2024. She complained about ongoing noise from the upstairs property due to what she believed was poor soundproofing. She explained that she was concerned her neighbour’s floorboards were damaged. She also complained about several repair issues, such as her boiler. The resident said that she still had an infestation of ants.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 July 2024. It said it had no record of the resident reporting any outstanding repair issues to it. It explained it had arranged to inspect the resident’s property on 31 July 2024. It had also arranged to contact her regarding the ant infestation. The landlord said it had identified no service failures with its handling of repairs.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint through us on 2 August 2024.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024. It gave an update on the repairs it had raised following the first complaint. It also apologised that it did not address the noise issue in its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported noise disturbance in 2020. It explained it could find no evidence that it had reviewed the video evidence she had provided at the time. The landlord said it had arranged for the relevant team to contact the resident to investigate this issue. The landlord apologised for its failure to previously address the noise issue and offered compensation of £750.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation. She requested that we investigate her complaint on 4 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has said that her health has been affected by noise disturbance and the condition of her property. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. This has not been investigated in this report.
  2. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint about issues which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident’s complaint to the landlord and Ombudsman included a range of issues about the landlord’s actions dating back to 2020. There is no evidence of these matters being raised as complaints with the landlord prior to mid-2024. Because of that they are too old to be considered. This investigation centres on the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s actions in 2024, including its response to her reports of noise nuisance.
  3. Following the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident reported multiple further and new issues, such as leaks, issues with mould and damage to her belongings. The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord about these further developments in October and November 2024. As these issues occurred after the complaint considered in this report they will not be investigated here. If the resident is dissatisfied with its responses to her new complaints, she has the option of asking the Ombudsman to start a new investigation, once she has exhausted her landlord’s internal complaint procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise disturbance.

  1. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported noise disturbance to her landlord after 2020 until her stage 1 complaint in July 2024. Nonetheless, it was part of her complaint, and the landlord should have responded to it, even if only to point out it was a new issue she was reporting and what it would do in response. The landlord did not do so.
  2. In its stage 2 response in September 2024, the landlord apologised that did it not address this issue at stage 1. It explained that it incorrectly considered that this was part of the repair issues the resident had also raised. In addition, the landlord acknowledged that it did not have records of all the resident’s reports in 2020. It said it was unclear if it had advised the resident that it did not provide soundproofing when the resident requested this in 2020. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not reviewed videos the resident sent to it. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the above failures and apologise for not addressing this issue at stage 1.
  3. When failures are identified our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it was introducing a good neighbour procedure to deal with noise transference issues from October 2024. Previously, it had dealt with noise disturbance under its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. The landlord explained that it considered it should deal with this issue now under its new policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider this issue under its new policy, as noise transference does not typically constitute ASB.
  5. The landlord explained that it would contact the resident to complete a risk assessment. This was to establish the effect noise transference was having on her. It would then complete a property inspection to help determine the level of noise transference and the cause. This would include checking the neighbour’s property. Following this, it would determine what actions it could take to reduce noise transference. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain what actions it would take to investigate the issue going forward, and the actions it was proposing were relevant and proportionate to what the resident had reported.
  6. The evidence shows that following its final response, the landlord completed a risk assessment on 20 September 2024. It then arranged an appointment to complete a survey on 9 October 2024. However, the resident requested this appointment cancelled and placed on hold due to a family member passing away. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 November 2024 asking if she was now able to proceed. But we can see no record that the resident responded to this. The landlord was unable to complete all actions it agreed due to the resident cancelling the appointment.
  7. The resident told the landlord in August 2024 that noise disturbance was affecting her sleep, health, and use of her property. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £750 for its failures to respond to the resident when she first reported the matter in 2020. In the circumstances of the resident not reporting further problems between 2020 and 2024, the compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in circumstances where there have been repeated failings and a significant impact, but where the landlord has acknowledged its mistakes and attempted to put things right.
  8. Overall, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge, apologise and put things right. The landlord’s actions to put things right, along with its apology and financial redress, reasonably put things right and resolved the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days of a report.
  2. The resident complained to her landlord through the Service on 15 July 2024 about several repair issues. She complained about rising damp, no damp proofing, missing mortar and about issues with her kitchen and boiler. She also complained about incomplete redecoration following a leak and issues with her front door and windows.
  3. The landlord in its stage 1 response in July 2024 said the resident should report repair issues to its repairs team. But it could find no record of her doing so. Due to this, it had referred her reports to its repairs team and arranged an appointment for 31 July 2024.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord completed repairs to the resident’s heating system in February and March 2024. The contractor reported that it left the heating system working. We have seen no evidence that the resident reported a further issue with her heating system or any of the above issues until her stage 1 complaint. Because of that it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the issues raised to its repair team.
  5. The evidence shows that the landlord identified on 31 July 2023 that it needed to complete repairs to the exterior of the property, the kitchen and heating system. It identified no issues with the resident’s doors or windows. It arranged an appointment to complete repairs on 2 September 2024, as the resident was away for a period in August 2024. The landlord completed most of the repairs on 2 September 2024. It arranged further appointments to complete repairs to the heating system and kitchen in September and October 2024. However, the resident asked the landlord to place the kitchen work on hold due to her health on 1 October 2024. She then asked the landlord on 15 October 2024 to place all repair appointments on hold until further notice.
  6. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the repairs the resident reported on 15 July 2024. It kept to the promises it made in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It arranged repair appointments in line with the resident’s availability. The landlord has only been unable to complete all repairs due to the resident requesting the work be placed on hold.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ants at the property.

  1. The landlord’s pest and wildlife policy states that it will not usually take any responsibility for garden ant infestations in a resident’s home. But it will fulfil any legal responsibilities it has or responsibilities under a tenancy agreement.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident reported that she keeps having ant infestations from her garden on 27 February 2024. The landlord arranged for its pest control contractor to attend on 8 March 2024. Its contractor reported a medium level of infestation. It put ant gel into cracks and crevices. It also provided the resident with advice on how to prevent further ant activity.
  3. The landlord’s investigations show that another tenant in the resident’s building reported an ant infestation in June 2024. In its stage 1 response in July 2024, the landlord incorrectly stated it was the resident who reported this infestation. The landlord explained that it would arrange a further visit if the resident was still experiencing an issue with ants.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident on 5 August 2024. It explained it had requested its contractor contact her within the next 7 days. A report from the contractor shows it attended the resident’s property on 12 August 2024. However, it recorded that there was no access, and it could not reach the resident by phone. There is no evidence that the contractor attempted to contact the resident again. In addition, there is no evidence that the resident raised this issue again with the landlord after 12 August 2024.
  5. Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of an ant infestation. The landlord under its policy may have no responsibility for an ant infestation. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate this further in case the issue was caused by a repair issue. The landlord kept to its stage 1 promise to arrange a visit. While the visit was unsuccessful, the resident did not raise this issue again with the landlord. The landlord provided incorrect information in its stage 1 response about the resident reporting an issue in June 2024. However, this caused no detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of reports of noise disturbance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s request for repairs.
    2. The resident’s reports of ants at the property.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £750 it offered in its complaint responses.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord was unable to complete a noise transference survey or complete all repairs due to the resident cancelling appointments in October 2024. If the landlord has not yet arranged appointments regarding these issues, it should consider contacting the resident to offer to arrange a survey to investigate the noise transference issues at her property. It should also offer to arrange appointments to complete the outstanding repairs reported in July 2024.