Clarion Housing Association Limited (202316149)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316149

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of nuisance caused by carers visiting a neighbouring flat.
2. Concerns about noise nuisance from a local bus station.
3. Reports of repairs to the boiler.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 1-bedroom flat, since April 2013. The property is in a residential building, containing flats of different tenures.
The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his physical and mental health. The landlord confirmed it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
On 2 August 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord via telephone. He said that he was unhappy with how 2 of its staff members had handled his concerns about the nuisance caused by carers visiting his neighbour’s flat.
At the request of the resident, we also contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023. We asked it to open a formal complaint to investigate its handling of the noise caused by a local transport company and boiler repairs which caused leaking hot water and loud noises. We also asked it to review its complaint handling.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. It said:
1. It had reviewed the timeline of events from May 2023 regarding the resident’s reports of loud banging noises and urinating, spitting, and rubbish in the communal areas. Overall, it could not identify any failures in its handling of the matters. It provided the following findings:
  1. The neighbour’s flat was managed by a different housing association that owned several properties in the building. These properties were for vulnerable residents who required continuous care.
  2. Following the resident’s reports, it had contacted the manager responsible for the carers visiting the neighbour’s property, and they denied any wrongdoing.
  3. On 31 May 2023, it informed the resident that it would close his general enquiry about ASB but asked him to complete diary sheets to note any further incidents. Upon receipt it would start an “anti-social behaviour process”.
  4. Between 9 and 23 June 2023, the resident contacted it to advise that he had not received the diary sheets and did not want the general enquiry closed. During this time, the staff member dealing with his case was on annual leave.
  5. It acknowledged that the resident had issues with telephone reception in his property, which on occasions made it difficult to speak with him. On 26 June 2023, it had attempted to call the resident on 2 occasions. When he returned the call, it arranged to have the diary sheets hand delivered on 29 June 2023. It had also asked the resident if it could visit his property, but he declined the offer as he was in the process of decorating.
  6. On 30 June 2023, the resident confirmed he had received the diary sheets, but advised he was unable to complete them due to his ill health.
  7. On 11 July 2023, it carried out a “door knock” at the resident’s block and spoke with other neighbours and site concierge. No issues were reported.
  8. During a call on 25 July 2023, the resident informed it that the noise from the carers was ongoing. He said he wanted to move home and would consider moving to supported accommodation. It opened an “advice and support process” on its systems, to assist with moving options, filling in forms and help with furniture.
  9. It noted that the resident was unhappy that he had not received calls on 2 and 4 August 2023. However, it had found no evidence that it had agreed to call him on these dates.
2. It was not responsible for any noise originating from the local bus station and advised the resident to report this directly to the transport company.
3. Its repair contractor responded to the resident’s reports of boiler issues in June 2023. There was no evidence of any leaks, but the pump was overheating and required a replacement. In mid-June, the system was isolated and drained, and the pump was replaced. It said it found no service failures in its handling of the matter.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 16 August 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. It said:
1. It maintained that it could not find any service failings in relation to the resident’s concerns about ASB from the neighbour’s carers. With regard to the calls on 2 and 4 August 2023, its records showed that it had attempted to call the resident on these dates, but it acknowledged that he had telephone signal issues.
2. It maintained that it was not responsible for noise complaints originating from the bus station.
3. With regard to the boiler repairs:
  1. Its records showed that there was an issue with the expansion vessel in May 2022, and this was resolved.
  2. On 6 June 2023, its repair contractor attended a ‘no heating and hot water’ report. The contractor installed a new pump on 16 June 2023.
  3. A further boiler breakdown was reported on 25 August 2023 (after the stage 1 response), and new parts were installed on 14 September 2023.
  4. A further appointment was arranged for 10 October 2023. However, the resident had requested to rearrange the appointment to 12 October 2023. It had requested a full inspection of the heating system during this appointment.
  5. As part of its investigation, it had also reviewed some additional repair records for the property. On 26 May 2023, the resident had reported an issue with leaking taps. The repair contractor attended on 8 June 2023 and repairs were undertaken and the water pressure turned down. Its records showed that the resident was unhappy with this repair and during a call he had made “verbal threats”, which resulted in the need to send 2 operatives to the next appointment. The repairs were completed on 30 August 2023.
  6. It was unable to identify that the resident was without hot water, and he had declined the offer of temporary heaters. It had not identified any service failings, and the repairs had been completed in line with its policy.
4. It apologised to the resident for failing to send the stage 1 response directly to him on 11 August 2023, and for not responding to his queries between 14 and 29 August 2023. It offered him £100 in compensation in recognition of this.
5. It had received “over 200” emails from the resident on 28 August 2023, and it considered it was not “fair or rational to expect that number of emails to be responded to in quick succession”. Should the resident wish to review the emails it had received (as he was concerned that some had been deleted), he could raise a subject access request (SAR).
6. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns that he said he was unable to contact it via telephone or its online complaint form between 4 and 27 August 2023. It assured him that it did not have the ability to block residents’ numbers and asked him to confirm some further information so that it could investigate the issue further.
7. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to move home, and it had reviewed his housing application with the assistance of the local authority. This confirmed that he had been in “Band 1” (the highest priority banding) since March 2013 and that he had not made any bids since 2020. It encouraged the resident to check the available properties on a weekly basis or explore a move via the mutual exchange process.

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 20 June 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 in compensation (bringing its total offer to £200). Although it did not to specify which element of the complaint the offer was in relation to, the evidence suggests that it was in recognition of its handling of the boiler repairs.
In March 2025, the resident informed us that he was still experiencing nuisance from the carers and noise from the local bus station. He also advised us that he had an ongoing repair issue with the boiler, of which the landlord was aware.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident provided us with evidence that he had informed the landlord about the substantive issues as early as 2019. While it is acknowledged that these issues were longstanding, the available records indicate there were periods when the resident was not regularly reporting them. The fact that the problems were recurring is not disputed, but the evidence suggests they were not continuous. Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable period. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues between January 2023 and October 2023, when the stage 2 response was issued. This reflects the relevant period of continuous reporting in the time leading up to the complaint. We will also address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report.
Paragraph 42.j of the Scheme sets out that we will not investigate complaints which, in our opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. The resident has complained about an alleged data breach. This includes an allegation that the landlord accessed his housing application without his permission and that it purposefully deleted emails that he had sent it. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the body responsible for considering complaints about data protection, and therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the scope of our investigation. However, as above, we will address any complaint handling failings within the relevant section of this report.
The landlord’s subsequent compensation award in June 2024 is both welcome and significant. However, as it was made 8 months after it had issued its stage 2 response and was prompted by the Ombudsman’s involvement in the case, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). This means we cannot use its offer to reach a reasonable redress finding in its handling of the boiler repairs. We will, however, assess this within the complaint handling section of this report.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had placed him on its staff risk register in September 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, any new issues that the resident has raised since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response will not be considered as part of this investigation. If the resident is unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, he may choose to make a further complaint to the landlord. He may then refer this to this Service for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident has described how he feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on his health. While this Service does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints concerning matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Reports of nuisance caused by carers visiting a neighbouring flat

Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported by the resident happened, or whether the reported disturbances constituted a nuisance. Instead, we will consider if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation, if it responded to the resident’s reports in line with its legal and policy obligations, and if the response was fair in all the circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will log all reports of ASB. When the threshold is met (3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days or 5 separate incidents reported in 28 days by the same person), it will investigate noise and other forms of ASB within 5 working days. No threshold will apply if it considers the resident to be particularly vulnerable or that it has a duty of care. The policy also states that the landlord may also use its discretion to act before a threshold is met.
On 11 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the carers visiting the neighbouring flat were spitting and leaving rubbish in the communal areas. The landlord’s internal records suggest that it sent an email to the resident to inform him that he would need to complain directly to the care company and closed the case on 23 January 2023. Given that this was the first time the resident had reported an issue since 18 May 2022 (and therefore did not meet the landlord’s ASB threshold), we find that this was a reasonable response from the landlord. This is because the landlord is not directly responsible for the actions of individuals employed by a different organisation, or for visitors to properties it does not own.
On 14 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the issues were persisting with the carers dumping rubbish. The landlord’s ASB policy states that where the ASB requires dumped rubbish in a communal area to be removed, it will not investigate the problem unless the threshold is met. The landlord responded to the resident the following day (15 March 2023) and advised him that it had tried to call him, without success. It requested that he provide further information about the flat the carers were visiting and asked him to confirm if he knew what agency they worked for. This was again a reasonable response from the landlord and showed that it was taking his concerns seriously. However, given that the landlord had previously signposted the resident to another agency, we find its communication confusing. It is our opinion that it would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm whether it was opening a formal ASB case to investigate the matters.
The resident provided photographs, the address of the neighbouring property, and further information about the carers on 20 March 2023. On 23 March 2023, the landlord informed the resident that:
1. It had contacted the care agency, which had confirmed that it did not provide a service at the neighbour’s address.
2. It had also emailed the concierge service within the building. It had checked the CCTV but was unable to identify who was responsible for dumping the rubbish.
3. It had asked the property management company to place notices by the bins and staircase to warn people that it was monitoring the situation. It would also instruct the cleaners to report any findings.
4. He should report any further incidents to it or the concierge service.
Although we have not seen the original documentary evidence that supports the above claims, we find that this was a reasonable and proactive approach from the landlord and the evidence suggests that the resident was happy with the action it had taken on this occasion.
The resident reported further incidents to the landlord on 4 occasions between 10 April 2023 and 15 May 2023. As well as dumping rubbish, the reports also included the carers “crashing furniture” against the resident’s walls, playing loud music, and breaking the lifts. The landlord’s internal notes from 24 April 2023 state that it told the resident it would write to the neighbour regarding the dumped rubbish. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so, which is a further record keeping failing in its handling of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will encourage customers to report excessive noise to their local council’s environmental health team (which has statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance and serve abatement notices on those responsible for the noise). Given that the resident had commented on how the noise was impacting him, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to suggest the resident contact the local authority for noise monitoring equipment.
The evidence suggests that the landlord spoke with the resident via telephone on 30 May 2023, and informed him that the care manager at the housing association (that owned the neighbour’s flat) had spoken to the carers about their behaviour. The landlord appropriately emailed the resident the following day to summarise the conversation and to confirm that it would close the enquiry, but explained that if he experienced any further issues, he should complete the diary sheets it had attached. However, the evidence suggests that it had failed to attach the documents and that these were hand delivered at a later date, which caused the resident inconvenience.
Between 9 and 23 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to report further nuisance, to request that his general enquiry was not closed, and to advise that he had not received the diary sheets. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said that during this time, the staff member dealing with his case was on annual leave. However, the landlord provided evidence to us that shows its neighbourhood response officer had attempted to call him on 2 occasions during the same period. Therefore, it is unclear which version of events is true. In mitigation, it could have been a different member of staff who was trying to contact the resident. In our opinion, if the staff member was on annual leave, the landlord should have had effective mechanisms in place to prevent the delays in responding to the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 June 2023. It advised him that it was awaiting an update from the housing association that owned the neighbouring property. However, we have not had sight of any evidence that the landlord had contacted to the other housing association, which is a further record keeping failure in its handling of the case. It was also unreasonable that the evidence of this email trail was provided to us by the resident and not the landlord.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it said that on 11 July 2023, it had undertaken a “door knock” at the resident’s building and spoke with other neighbours and site concierge. This was positive action from the landlord. However, as we have seen no documentary evidence of this visit, we find a further record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the case.
On 27 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm a telephone appointment for 2 August 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 August 2023 to express his dissatisfaction that it had not contacted him. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that it had no record of arranging a call for this date. Conversely, within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had tried to call the resident on several occasions, and it had also emailed him to inform him it was unable to reach him. We have also seen time-stamped evidence of internal messages which corroborates that the landlord had attempted to call him at this time. Therefore, we find that the landlord acted appropriately in relation to the call.
Within the resident’s email to the landlord on 7 August 2023, he expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had again failed to call him on 4 August 2023. While we do not dispute the resident’s concerns, we have not seen any evidence that a call was arranged for this date. However, from the evidence provided, it is reasonable to assume that this call was one of the resident’s pre-arranged, weekly (usually on a Friday) check-in calls with the landlord. Within the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said that it had tried to call the resident on this date. However, as before, we have seen no documentary evidence of this, which is a further record keeping failure.
Given that both parties acknowledged that there was an issue with the resident’s telephone signal, it was positive that on 11 October 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm his preferred method of contact moving forward. This was a solution-focused approach.
The evidence suggests that the landlord was attempting to support the resident with his ASB concerns. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that it was dealing with the case in line with its ASB policy. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord opened an ASB case on its internal systems at any point during this case, which we find inappropriate and at odds with its ASB policy.
Statutory guidance for frontline professionals linked to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides agencies with guidance on how to identify and support victims of ASB. It is best practice for landlords to complete a risk assessment to assess a resident’s vulnerability and risk of harm at the earliest opportunity following a report of ASB. This was particularly important in this case, as the resident told the landlord he was distressed on several occasions. Despite this, it failed to evidence it had carried out a risk assessment between January 2023 and October 2023, which was inappropriate.
We acknowledge that the issues the resident was experiencing was attributable to visiting carers, rather than the individual residing in the neighbouring flat. We also accept that the landlord was in a difficult position as it did not have the authority to take enforcement action against a non-tenant and their visitors. However, our Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints explains that landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from their ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This includes mediation, which should be offered to residents at the earliest opportunity to establish a mutual understanding of each other’s lifestyles. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered offering mediation between the 2 parties and documented its decision. This was unreasonable and at odds with its ASB policy, which states that where resolution is not possible, it may suggest mediation where it could assist in resolving a situation.
Taking the full circumstances of the case into account, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the ASB because:
1. It failed to open an ASB case and undertake any risk assessments.
2. It produced no evidence of signposting the resident to environmental health to have noise recording equipment installed.
3. Its record keeping was poor.
4. On occasions, its communication with the resident was inadequate.
5. It failed to identify and apologise in its final response for its failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due.
An order of compensation has been made in recognition of the failures identified in this report. It has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Noise nuisance from a local bus station

As mentioned earlier in the report, we have not assessed the landlord’s actions prior to January 2023. However, it is relevant to note by way of context that on 3 February 2020, the landlord contacted the transport company on the resident’s behalf about the noise originating from the bus station. The transport company confirmed that following contact from the resident, it had already undertaken a “covert surveillance” investigation. As a result, it had reduced its broadcasting noise levels and disabled one of the loudspeakers to help reduce the noise pollution from the bus station. The landlord forwarded the transport company’s response to the resident on 13 February 2020.
On 15 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that since his tenancy commenced, he had experienced problems with bus drivers who were parking outside his property and “shouting and testing alarms morning and night”. From the evidence provided, it is not clear to us if the resident was reporting a new incident or describing historical events to the landlord. There is evidence that the landlord attempted to call the resident the same day, but its records show that it was returning his call regarding the rubbish in the communal areas. As there is no evidence of any alternative form of follow-up, we cannot find that the landlord attempted to respond to his concerns about the bus station, which was unreasonable. Even if the landlord believed the resident’s contact to relate to historical issues, it would have been appropriate for it to confirm this with him.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will not raise residents’ expectations that it can take action where it cannot do so, or where primary responsibility and powers lie elsewhere. We have found no evidence that the landlord has a legal or procedural obligation to take action on this matter. However, given that it had historically supported the resident with the same concerns, we find that it should have explained to him in May 2023 that it was unable to assist him any further (if this was the case). Its failure to do so is likely to have caused confusion for the resident.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it stated that it was not responsible for other organisations’ actions. It encouraged the resident to report the issue directly to the transport company. This was reasonable, as its ASB policy states that it recognises that other agencies share responsibility in tackling and preventing ASB. However, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, we find that it also could have signposted the resident to report the noise to his local council’s environmental health team.
Overall, as the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns in May 2023 and did not inform him of its obligations sooner, we find there was service failure in its handling of the matter. An order of compensation has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own guidance on remedies.

Boiler repairs

The landlord’s repair responsibilities are set out on its website. It states that it is responsible for boiler repairs, and that it uses specialist local contractors to undertake these repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that repairs reported by residents are prioritised into one of 2 categories. Emergency repairs are classified as those that present an immediate danger to the resident, public or property. They will be attended within 24 hours to make safe, with further requires potentially required. Non-emergency repairs are appointed by the landlord’s contact centre at the initial point of contact and will be offered within 28 calendar days.
As mentioned earlier in the report, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the boilers repairs prior to January 2023. However, for context, both parties agree that the resident reported an issue with the boiler in May 2022. It is reasonable to assume that the issue was resolved satisfactorily as we have seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord about the boiler again until May 2023.
The resident reported a repair to the landlord on 26 May 2023. He said that the hot taps in the kitchen and bathroom were broken and leaking. Although not directly related to the boiler, the landlord included this repair within its stage 2 response. The repair records indicate that it was categorised as a non-emergency repair and attended to on 8 June 2023, 8 working days after it was reported, when the landlord turned down the water pressure. In the circumstances, we find that it should have attended to the repair sooner. The landlord also acknowledged the unreasonableness of the delay in June 2024 when it offered the resident additional compensation.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that a repair was completed on 16 June 2023. The landlord provided us with repair contractor reports which show that the repairs were undertaken on 6 and 14 June 2023. Although likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, this is a further record keeping failure. The landlord also did not provide evidence of what date the resident first reported the boiler repair in June 2023. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord failed to attend within its repair target timescales, as it said in June 2024 that it had failed to meet its service level agreement on 6 June 2023.
The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy states that residents can report repairs using a variety of methods, including email. Between 15 and 17 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord on 4 occasions about the boiler. He said that the boiler was still not fixed, that it was “hot to touch”, that there was hot water coming out of the cold-water taps, and that the heating was on constantly. Given the nature of the repairs the resident had reported, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably in failing to respond to him. It is our opinion that it should have raised the repair as an emergency and attended within 24 hours.
The evidence suggests that the resident contacted the landlord via telephone to re-raise the repair on 23 August 2023. The records indicate that following the call, the advisor who spoke with the resident logged an “act of aggression report”, which subsequently meant that it required 2 operatives to attend the property for safety purposes. The repair contractor then attended the property on 25 August 2023. In June 2024, the landlord acknowledged that this repair was delayed, and it did not meet its target timescales. In mitigation, we recognise that on this occasion the landlord required further resource to arrange for 2 engineers to attend.
During the appointment on 25 August 2023, the repair contractor identified that 2 port valves required a replacement, as well as the cylinder stat. The date-stamped records state that the contractor turned the boiler off and advised the resident to turn it back on when he needed to heat the water. The landlord’s internal records show that it was in regular contact with its repair contractor about the sourcing and cost of the replacement parts, which was positive. However, between 30 August 2023 and 11 September 2023, the resident requested an update on the repair from the landlord on 4 occasions. Although it is accepted that the landlord’s policy allowed for 28 calendar days to resolve the repair, and it completed it on 14 September 2023, the evidence suggests that during this period it failed to keep the resident informed about his repair, which was unreasonable.
We also find it inappropriate that in the landlord’s response to the resident on 11 September 2023, it told him he would need to report any heating faults directly to the repair contractor. This was unhelpful, and we expect landlords to provide residents with updates on repairs for which it is responsible.
On 3 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the part it had replaced in September 2023 was making a loud noise. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it advised him that an appointment was scheduled for 12 October 2023. The reason why this appointment was then rescheduled for 20 October 2023 is unknown. Therefore, we unable to make an assessment on this matter. However, the importance of keeping timely and accurate records of decisions – such as those relating to rescheduling – is highlighted.
The repair records provided by the landlord, dated up to May 2024, do not show any further repairs in relation to the boiler. However, the resident informed us that he is currently experiencing boiler repair issues. We have therefore made an order to address the current situation.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of boiler repairs. This is because it failed to adhere to the timescales outlined in its repairs policy on numerous occasions. Additionally, its communication with the resident throughout the repair process was poor. An award of compensation has been calculated in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) at the time of the complaint said landlords should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It also stated that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. The Code did not become statutory until April 2024.
Following a cyber security incident, the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy on 17 June 2022. It stated that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days. Peer reviews (stage 2 complaints) would be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days. The Ombudsman appreciates the effect a cyber incident can have on an organisation. It is reasonable that an organisation may need to pause its normal processes while it puts plans in place to deal with the effects of a cyber incident.
On 4 occasions between 5 June 2023 and 20 July 2023, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues and requested to speak with its complaints manager. Within one of the resident’s emails (on 23 June 2023), he stated that wanted to make an “official complaint”. We therefore find that the landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction and treat the matter as a complaint.
The resident made a further complaint on 2 August 2023. In line with its complaint policy, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day (3 August 2023) and advised him that it would contact him within 20 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
At the request of the resident, we also contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023. As the resident required intervention from this Service to progress some aspects of his complaint, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably. However, it was appropriate that the landlord then acknowledged the additional complaint issues with the resident on 7 August 2023.
The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. It was appropriate that the landlord’s complaint handler contacted the resident on 7 August 2023 and 8 August 2023 and offered him a call to discuss his complaint. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord missed the resident’s request for a call at 12pm the same day. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the inconvenience it caused, but it did not offer him another call. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy states that it will “make it easy” for its residents to contact it during the complaint process and keep them informed throughout. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 occasions between 8 August 2023 and 11 August 2023 about his complaint. We acknowledge that the landlord’s customer service team advised him that it had forwarded his emails to the relevant team. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident or considered his comments as part of its complaint investigation. The importance of clear, regular, and well documented updates to residents on their complaint is highlighted.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. This was reasonable, as it was within 7 working days of the resident raising his complaint. However, it is noted that the landlord provided us with its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023 but failed to provide the resident with a copy. It is accepted that the landlord arranged to have a paper copy posted to the resident on 14 August 2023 (although, from the evidence provided, it is not clear if he received this). Given that most of the landlord’s communication with the resident was via email, it would have been appropriate for it to send him a copy of the stage 1 response via the same method of communication. We find that the landlord’s approach in this instance showed a lack of customer focus.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the resident told the landlord on numerous occasions that he was unhappy with its handling of the substantive issues for over 4 years. The resident also provided us with evidence that he had reported the issues to the landlord as early as November 2019. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint states that it will not consider complaints where an issue occurred over 6 months before the complaint is made, unless there are ongoing issues related to the complaint. This approach was in line with the 2022 Code. However, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably as it only reviewed its ASB handling from May 2023. Additionally, we find that the landlord should have explained to the resident its reasoning for not investigating the other substantive issues beyond the 6-month period outlined in its policy. Its failure to be transparent about the investigation timeline may have caused the resident to be concerned that it was not taking his complaint seriously.
During the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation, it appropriately emailed its repairs contractor and asked it to answer some questions about the resident’s recent boiler repairs. The landlord asked the contractor to confirm if the resident had been contacted about his repairs and if “there had been any service failures”. As we have seen no further evidence to support this element of its investigation, it suggests that it solely relied on the contractor’s version of events, which is not consistent with procedural fairness. As mentioned earlier in the report, we identified some failings in its handling of the boiler repairs and the landlord made a late compensation offer in recognition of delayed repair appointments. Therefore, this shows that the landlord’s investigation was not sufficiently thorough and may have undermined the resident’s confidence in its complaints process.
The Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so. When we contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023, we informed it that its investigation should include a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, we find that the landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to reference its complaint handling within its stage 1 response.
On 16 August 2023, the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded to the resident the following day (17 August 2023) to ask him what outcome he would like and why he remained dissatisfied. This was reasonable and in line with its interim complaints policy, which stated the resident would need to be clear on their desired outcome and explain what they did not accept from the stage 1 response.
Between 17 August 2023 and 29 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord on more than 20 occasions in relation to his stage 2 escalation. While it is positive that the landlord confirmed receipt of some of his emails, it did not formally acknowledge his escalation request or provide him with an update until 5 October 2023. This was following further intervention from us (on 4 October 2023) and a total of 35 working days from the date the resident had first requested to escalate his complaint. While also taking into account the landlord’s extended complaint timescales, we find that this was an excessive delay.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will listen and ensure it understands the resident’s complaint. We have seen no evidence that the landlord introduced its stage 2 complaint handler, or that it contacted the resident to discuss his stage 2 complaint, despite his request for it to confirm the name of the complaint handler. This was inappropriate and again indicated insufficient customer focus.
As instructed by this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 October 2023. This was 39 working days from the date the resident had requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2, and therefore in line with the 40-day timescale outlined in the landlord’s interim complaints policy.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that if a resident raises an additional complaint during an investigation, and addressing it would delay the response significantly, a new complaint should be logged. Additionally, the applicable Code states that if a resident raises additional complaints after the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 October 2023 to ask him further questions about his concerns that it had blocked his telephone number in August 2023. Within its stage 2 response it said that it had found no evidence that corroborated his claims. However, as these issues had not yet been through stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, we find that it would have been more appropriate for it to open a new stage 1 complaint to undertake a comprehensive investigation.
A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. To assist with the landlord’s stage 2 investigation, the resident provided the landlord with copies of emails about the substantive issues. On 29 August 2023, the landlord informed the resident that it had received 231 emails from him. The resident had some concerns that the landlord had deleted some of the email evidence as he had claimed he had sent it 256 emails. The resident repeated his concerns several times. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient and distressing for him. This was a potentially serious data-related allegation that carried wider implications if proven and so warranted a proper response from the landlord. It is accepted that the landlord advised the resident to submit a SAR. However, it is our opinion that the landlord failed to answer or adequately respond to the resident’s claims. It also did not demonstrate that it took a suitably empathetic and supportive approach in response to the resident’s obvious frustration.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household. Throughout the resident’s correspondence about his complaint, he disclosed his medical conditions on numerous occasions. It is our opinion that the landlord should have responded to the resident, captured the relevant information, and then made an assessment on how the issue had impacted him when considering compensation. Its repeated omission to do these things was unsatisfactory.
At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £100 for its complaint handling. It said that this was in recognition of the stage 1 letter being sent out via post and its failure to respond to his subsequent emails. For these failures alone, this offer of compensation was reasonable. However, taking all the issues identified within this report into account, we find that the landlord’s offer was disproportionately low and did not reflect the number, extent or impact of its failures.
As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord awarded the resident further compensation in June 2024 (in relation to the boiler repairs). This amounts to a further complaint handling failure, as we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during its formal complaint process. It is appropriate for landlords to review their actions in light of new information or to reflect the growing impact of a continued issue over time. However, when a landlord increases its offer following our intervention, with the apparent aim of avoiding investigation and/or a more serious finding of failure, this cannot be considered reasonable redress even if the increased award is proportionate.
Overall, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. This has been calculated to reflect the landlord’s failures identified within this report, and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of nuisance caused by carers visiting a neighbouring flat.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from a local bus station.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the boiler.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £750 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
  1. £300 for its handling of his reports of nuisance caused by carers visiting a neighbouring flat.
  2. £50 for its handling of his concerns about noise nuisance from the bus station.
  3. £150 for its handling of the boiler repairs. This includes the £100 previously offered by the landlord post stage 2, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
  4. £250 for its handling of his complaint. This includes the £100 previously offered by the landlord a stage 1, plus an additional £150 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
3. Provide a response to the resident in relation to his allegation of it deleting his emails.
4. Contact the resident to arrange a mutually convenient appointment to repair the boiler if it has not already done so.
5. Contact the resident to obtain accurate and up-to-date details of his vulnerabilities, including any health conditions he wishes to disclose and any associated needs/impacts, and ensures its records are updated accordingly.
6. Contact the resident to discuss the options available to him regarding a move to alternative accommodation.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.