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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202231359)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231359

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns regarding the neighbour’s use of commercial vehicles and allocated car parking spaces.
    2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared owner of the property which is a 2-bedroom house. The resident’s partner is acting as the representative in this complaint. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and their partner will be referred to as the ‘resident.’
  2. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 22 June 2023 in relation to contact received from the resident. The resident stated that he had complained to his landlord and had not received a response to his concerns. The concerns were in relation to his neighbour parking over and into his allocated parking space and having 2 pickup trucks parked on the premises. He said it was a breach of the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond to the complaint.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023. It said that the resident submitted an enquiry regarding his neighbour parking over his space and having pickup trucks on 24 November 2022. It said it attempted to contact the resident on 24 November 2022 and 16 December 2022, with no success. It said it had not made any further attempts, which it said was a service failure.
  4. The landlord said the neighbourhood response officer would make contact with the resident on 10 July 2023. It confirmed this would be to obtain further information regarding the parking and the neighbour’s anti-social behaviour (ASB). It said the officer would also make contact with its legal team for advice on what action to take next. It apologised for the time taken to respond to the resident. It upheld the complaint and offered £200 in recognition of the delays, inconvenience suffered, and its failure to follow process.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on the same day. He felt the compensation did not recognise the inconvenience and stress caused with the ongoing situation. He said he did not first raise the complaint in November 2022 and said the situation had been ongoing for years. He said the compensation should recognise that he has not been able to use the parking space he jointly owned with the landlord and paid for in monthly rental payments. The resident said he had spent much time emailing, taking photos, and requesting calls from the landlord. He said he was still waiting for someone to advise what action the landlord would take to address his complaint.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. It stated the following:
    1. It provided a timeline of events from when it said the resident first contacted it on 18 March 2021 to the time of the stage 2 response.
    2. It said the neighbourhood regional manager spoke to the resident on 24 August 2023 and informed the resident that the neighbour would be sent a final warning letter. It said if the issue was not resolved by 8 September 2023, it would look to take enforcement action against the neighbour. It said it would manage the case via a tenancy breach process.
    3. Its investigation had identified a number of service failures. These included inaccurate information provided in the stage 1 response, poor record keeping, and not following policy and procedure. It said it should have started and managed the tenancy breach process in November 2022. It said this resulted in it not escalating the situation in the correct way. The landlord said the resident made in excess of 10 requests for a call which were not actioned. It said there were significant time delays in responding to his emails, and the situation had taken an excessive amount of time to resolve.
    4. The landlord apologised for the poor service the resident had received. It said lessons had been learnt from his case and outlined what changes it had made.
    5. It confirmed who was overseeing the resident’s case to ensure all appropriate actions would be taken and to reach a resolution.
    6. It awarded an additional £550 in compensation. It said it had received the tenancy terms and could not see that the resident paid a designated amount for his parking space, therefore it would not refund any charges. It said given the inconvenience caused, £200 was for the resident’s loss of his parking space. The other £350 was for the failures outlined above in relation to the delays in resolving the complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the offer of compensation did not reflect his lack of use of his parking space. Nore did it reflect the numerous failures admitted by the landlord, and the upset and inconvenience caused. He said the landlord failed on a simple matter which had turned into a complete nightmare.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. On 13 December 2023, the landlord provided the resident with an “addendum response” to the stage 2 response. It said the resident had requested £9,100 for the loss of car park space, £550 which was offered at stage 2, and £200 to reflect his time sending emails, taking photos, and making calls. It referred to the events since the stage 2 response. It outlined when it had responded to the resident appropriately and when there was a service failure.
  2. The landlord said it had sought legal advice regarding the restricted use of his parking bay. It said it was not responsible for the actions or omissions of any leaseholder. It said it did not authorise or consent to the use of, or interference to his space, by his neighbour. It said it was a matter of law and it was not liable in any way for any losses he had incurred.
  3. It said it would not be paying any more compensation over and above the amount already offered as a goodwill gesture. It outlined the compensation offered so far. It offered a further £150 for responding to emails outside of its service level agreement and not adequately responding to all elements of the resident’s emails.
  4. On 25 October 2024, the landlord confirmed that following an application for injunction against the neighbour, the court hearing had concluded and the order had been received. It said there should be no further issues going forward.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has stated that he has been reporting the issue for 10 years. The Ombudsman has found it reasonable to limit the scope of this investigation from the earliest record noted by the landlord of March 2021 up to the stage 2 response. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. We should clarify that we cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s failings have contributed to, or worsened, a residents physical and/or mental health, nor can we directly quantify this. However, we can consider the likely distress and inconvenience caused, and if the landlord should have done more during these events.
  3. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
  4. This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for the resident’s loss of use of his parking space. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and responded reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. Therefore, while the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and policies, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the neighbour’s use of commercial vehicles and allocated car parking spaces

  1. The resident’s lease states that the landlord is to observe and perform the regulations contained within its fifth schedule. The relevant sections in the fifth schedule state:
    1. Section 7 – “Not to park or permit any person residing with the Leaseholder to park any motor or other vehicle on the paths or driveways or visitor’s parking area (if any) of the Landlord’s Property or to repair such vehicles thereon and not to use any parking space otherwise than for the parking of a private motor car or cycle. No commercial vehicles caravan trailer or moveable dwelling of any kind or boat or transporter for boats may be parked on the Landlord’s Property other than for purposes of delivery or collection”.
    2. Section 13 – “Not to do or allow any other person occupying the Premises with the leaseholders permission (including visitors) to do anything likely to cause harassment nuisance or annoyance or neighbours or their visitors or other leaseholders or tenants or their visitors employees or contractors of the Landlord whether in the Premises a neighbour’s premises or the Landlord’s offices”.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it would not generally consider parking to be ASB. It says that low level and repeated incidents which may not appear as ASB, may be having a serious impact on the victim’s life. Therefore, if the behaviour is persistent and deliberate and is having a harmful impact on a person, it will investigate the matter in line with its ASB policy.
  3. The evidence shows that the resident had been raising the issue regarding his neighbour parking in his bay since at least March 2021. The resident stated that the landlord had not resolved the issues over the lifetime of the complaint. The resident said he had explained on 5 May 2021 that he had attempted to address the issue with his neighbour to no avail. He then repeatedly reported the issues to the landlord. In September 2022, the resident said it had been ongoing for 7 years and referred to the impact on his household’s mental health.
  4. While the landlord’s ASB policy states that it does not generally consider parking to be ASB. Given the frequency and nature of the complaints, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had fully considered its responsibilities in this case. As well as the stipulation regarding commercial vehicles, the resident’s reports suggested that by encroaching onto his parking space, the neighbour was causing him nuisance and annoyance. Therefore, it should have considered section 13 of the fifth schedule of the lease and its threshold for ASB.
  5. If the landlord had applied its ASB policy it could have considered a range of appropriate interventions to deter the issue. This could have included warning letters, acceptable behaviour contracts, and mediation. Once it had exhausted these interventions, it could have then considered legal action by way of an injunction using the evidence provided. At the point of the stage 2 response, the landlord had sent some warning letters to the neighbour, but when the resident reported that the behaviour continued, it did not take further action. As a result, the situation remained the same for the resident for an unnecessary length of time.
  6. An example of this is a notice sent to the neighbour on 27 May 2021 which stated that the neighbour had 7 days to comply with the notice to remove their commercial vehicle. The resident provided evidence on 1 June 2021 that the issue was continuing. No evidence has been provided of the landlord responding to the resident or escalating the warning, which was not appropriate.
  7. The landlord stated that it started further tenancy breach processes following the resident’s email on 24 November 2022 and again from 24 April 2023 onwards. The landlord has not provided any records in relation to these processes or evidenced that it followed its procedure. The stage 2 response stated that it should have started and managed the tenancy breach process in November 2022. The Ombudsman finds that it would have been reasonable to have started the process sooner. It may have even been appropriate to do so from 7 days after the notice sent on 27 May 2021, if it found the neighbour had not been compliant.
  8. The resident continued to report the issues throughout 2023 and contacted the Ombudsman for assistance when he was not receiving a response. In an internal email dated 24 August 2023, the landlord confirmed that it could not find any record of tenancy breach processes on the system. It also said the issue was “quite clear cut in terms of the lease agreement” and referred to section 7 in the fifth schedule. It is concerning that despite the large amount of contact from the resident and its understanding of its responsibilities, the landlord still took so long to take the appropriate action.
  9. Essentially, in this case there were a number of significant failings which resulted in the issue remaining unresolved for an extended length of time. The evidence shows the resident had to go to significant lengths and time and trouble, including approaching the Ombudsman, to get the landlord to take any meaningful action against his complaint. This was not appropriate.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its record keeping was poor and that it did not manage the situation in line with its policy and procedures. It acknowledged that it did not respond to emails in line with its service level agreements and that the issue had taken an excessive amount of time to resolve.
  11. Where failings are identified, it is the role of the Ombudsman to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is in accordance with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  12. The landlord apologised and outlined the lessons that would be learnt from the complaint, as well as the changes it had made. This included feedback to its teams on the importance of recording all interactions and ensuring that it managed tenancy breaches within its policy and procedures. It said it had implemented new data reporting which would allow it to contact customers within its service level agreement. It provided a named contact who would oversee the case to bring a resolution to the complaint. The landlord also awarded compensation which will be considered later in this report.
  13. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s response was in line with the dispute resolution principles. It was fair for it to acknowledge its failures and to apologise to the resident. It aimed to put things right by offering compensation and providing a specific point of contact to the point of resolution. It also outlined its learning from the outcomes to ensure it would not make the same mistakes in future.
  14. The resident remained dissatisfied, partly because he felt the landlord should have awarded compensation for the loss of use of his parking space. The landlord said that it could not see that the resident paid a designated amount for his parking space and therefore could not identify where a refund would be due. It later said that it had sought legal advice and concluded that it was not liable for any losses which the resident said had occurred. It offered £200 of its compensation as a goodwill gesture to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  15. In making any findings, the Ombudsman must rely on the contemporaneous evidence provided to it. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence in the lease agreement, rent, or service charges which specifies an amount for the use of the parking space. The absence of this information means the Ombudsman cannot establish if there was any quantifiable financial loss to the resident.
  16. It was positive for the landlord to seek legal advice on this matter and it appropriately outlined why it did not believe it was liable for the losses. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this has likely been a very stressful time for the resident and there is no dispute that the landlord caused significant delays in resolving the matter. However, as previously outlined, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for the loss of use of the parking space. If the resident disputes the landlord’s position, he may wish to seek legal advice.
  17. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration if not for the steps taken by the landlord to remedy its failures in its stage 2 response. This Service has therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the neighbour’s use of commercial vehicles and allocated car parking spaces.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and level of compensation offered

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time described a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. It says that a customer does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as one.
  2. The complaints policy applied a 2 stage procedure. It states that at stage 1 of its procedure a complaint must be acknowledged and logged with 10 working days. It says it must be responded to within 20 working days of it being logged. The policy states that following the stage 1 response a customer can request a peer review. It says it will acknowledge peer review requests within 10 working days and aim to resolve them within 40 working days.
  3. It should be noted that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy which is now in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and to provide a better service to residents.
  4. Following the Ombudsman’s contact, the landlord adhered to the timeframes in its complaints policy at the time. Although, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, the landlord’s stage 2 response referred to the resident requesting contact details to raise a complaint from March 2021. The landlord acknowledged that it did not contact the resident when it initially said it would. However, there were several occasions when it would have been appropriate for it to treat the resident’s contact as formal complaint and it did not do so. It is disappointing that it did not provide a stage 1 response until the Ombudsman’s involvement.
  5. The Ombudsman notes that no records have been provided from 1 June 2021 to September 2022. The resident has confirmed that the issue was ongoing at that time and that the landlord had referred to missing records due to its cyber attack. The resident said he offered to provide the missing information to the landlord but this was declined. The landlord has not confirmed this to the Ombudsman but it has acknowledged its poor record keeping. If the resident had offered to provide any missing records, it would have been reasonable for it to have accepted the offer to ensure it had fully investigated the complaint.
  6. As stated, no evidence has been provided of a quantifiable financial loss to the resident. As such, the landlord offered a discretionary goodwill gesture of £200 in compensation in recognition of the resident’s inability to use his parking space. It also offered an additional £550 for the delays in resolving the tenancy breach and its failures in resolving the complaint. The landlord offered a further £150 after the stage 2 response for its additional failings. The landlord also outlined the changes it had made to ensure its mistakes were not repeated.
  7. The Ombudsman finds that the amount of £900 offered for its identified failures was appropriate. The amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances of maladministration/severe maladministration where there was a significant impact on the resident. While the changes implemented by the landlord do not erase the resident’s poor experiences, the landlord has shown learning from its outcomes and has attempted to put things right. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
  8. On balance, the Ombudsman has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves its handling of the below issues satisfactorily:
    1. The resident’s reports regarding the neighbour’s use of commercial vehicles and allocated car parking spaces.
    2. The complaint and level of compensation offered.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should re-offer the £900 it previously offered to the resident.