Clarion Housing Association Limited (202302119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302119

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 March 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for permission to install CCTV.
3. Reports of repairs.
4. Concerns about staff conduct.
5. Concerns about its management of her rent account.
6. Concerns about an alleged data breach.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a 2 bedroom house. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord to report a noise disturbance from her neighbour’s dog, and a concern about the neighbour’s CCTV camera on 7 February 2023. The landlord opened an ASB case on 27 February 2023, but the resident asked it to close the case on 9 March 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 March 2023 and reported concerns about ASB from her neighbours. She asked for an in person appointment to discuss the ASB. The landlord offered the resident an in person appointment on 26 April 2023. It is unclear whether the appointment went ahead at that time. The resident made a complaint on 27 April 2023 stating she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB, and asked to move to a different property.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2023. It said the ASB case it had opened in April 2023 did not meet the threshold for further investigation. It said she was notified of its closure by email, but it noted it did not have an email address on file for the resident. It did not uphold the ASB part of the resident’s complaint, gave advice about its approach to ASB, and provided a link to its website. It said due to a recent “cyber incident” it was unable to assess its actions regarding her request for CCTV, and apologised. It said that because the property was in its “defect liability period” it was unable to agree to her request for CCTV, but she could ask again once the period ended. It apologised for the delay in sending the complaint response, and offered £50 in compensation.
The resident reported a repair to her shower on 27 July 2023. It does not appear the repair went ahead at that time.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked it to take her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 21 August 2023. She said the reports of ASB she made were due to her experiencing “racial and ASB behaviours” from her neighbours. She said its decision to refuse CCTV meant she was being “discriminated” against. The resident reported her neighbours’ use of her parking area as a “cut through” amounted to ASB and asked for permission to put plant pots there to prevent this. She raised a concern that its failure to deal with the ASB amounted to staff misconduct. She also reported that it had failed to attend to repair her shower.
The landlord completed a visit to the resident’s property on 22 September 2023 to discuss her concerns about ASB. The notes from the visit reflect it refused to allow her to put up a “barricade” on her parking space.
The landlord completed the repair to the shower on 25 September 2023.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2023, and said:
1. It gave a history of the actions took in relation to the reported ASB. It outlined the further reports of ASB received about the neighbours dog was “not ASB, and the noise was not excessive”. It apologised it had not yet notified her of its decision not to progress the case.
2. It had reviewed its records and was unable to find any evidence the resident had reported racially motivated hate crime/ASB to it. As it had no evidence of any ongoing ASB it had decided to refuse the resident’s transfer request.
3. It was aware the resident had a number of CCTV cameras installed, and asked her to provide details about each so it asses whether it had granted permission. It provided information about the instances where it had granted or refused other residents’ requests for CCTV.
4. It said it had credited its previous offer of compensation from the stage 1 complaint to the resident’s rent account because she was in arrears. It said it had done so in line with its compensation policy.
5. It had decided to refuse the resident’s request to reduce the amount of rent paid for the property. It apologised if she found the arrears letters “threatening”. It explained it would review the wording of its arrears letters to see if any changes were needed. It said it was “justified” in sending arrears letters.
6. It set out its position that it had determined the resident’s concern about people using her parking area as a “cut through” did not amount to ASB. It advised that it could consider her request to place plant pots there if she formally requested to.
7. It apologised that the shower repair was completed outside of its target timeframes, and offered £250 for its handling of the matter.
8. It apologised for the delay in sending the response citing “high levels of customer contact”, and offered £50 in compensation for the delay.
The resident contacted this Service in December 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB, and that she was still experiencing ASB from her neighbours. She raised a concern the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues had impacted on her mental wellbeing and its decision to refuse her request for CCTV meant she was “discriminated” against.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about an alleged data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
When the resident made her complaint, in April 2023, she raised a concern that the landlord had committed a data breach, and raised queries about the landlord’s use of her data. The landlord responded to this concern at both stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. While the serious nature of this complaint is acknowledged, this is not a matter which the Ombudsman can consider. Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) investigates complaints about an organisation’s handling of personal data. The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. The resident may wish to raise a complaint with the ICO if she remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her personal data.
Throughout her complaint, the resident raised a concern that the ASB was impacting on her health, and the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to her health is beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she wishes to pursue this matter further.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it works in partnership with “internal and external” agencies, including the police, to tackle ASB. The policy states that ASB cases related to noise will be investigated within 5 working days if a threshold of 5 incidents within 28 days is met.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will consider residents for a transfer when they are experiencing “serious antisocial behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk”. The policy states that it will need confirmation from the police, in writing, that there is a “serious risk” to the resident.
The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident a detriment.
The evidence shows the resident first reported a concern about a noise disturbance from her neighbour’s dog in February 2023. The landlord opened a case and sought to gain further information from the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances. It is noted the resident withdrew her ASB complaint shortly after the landlord had opened the case. The landlord’s actions at that time were appropriate.
When the resident raised further concerns about ASB in March/April 2023 she asked for an in person meeting to discuss the matter. The landlord agreed to this and arranged to visit her on the day she requested. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and sought to investigate the matter further. It is unclear whether the appointment went ahead and the landlord’s own comments on the matter lack clarity. In an internal email seen as part of this investigation the landlord stated it was “unable to see notes about the appointment”. This is a failing in its record keeping. It later said in its stage 2 complaint response that the visit did go ahead, but it did not discuss the resident’s concerns about ASB. This was due to other matters arising.
We have not been able to corroborate the landlord’s version of the meeting as set out in its stage 2 complaint response, as it has not provided supporting evidence. However, what it evident is that its communication with the resident about the ASB from that time was poor, and it did not follow up on her concerns about ASB at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter that caused an inconvenience. The resident was evidently distressed at the issues with her neighbours, the landlord’s lack of appropriate follow up may have increased her distress.
The evidence indicates the landlord did not investigate the resident concerns about ASB any further after her report in April 2023. Its comments that the case did not meet the threshold for further investigation are noted. However, that it did not formally communicate its position to the resident at this time was unreasonable and this caused her an inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of June 2023, lacked detail about its handling of the ASB case. It set out that its notes reflected it had emailed the resident about the case closure, but did not have an email address on file. This may have been confusing for the resident, and is evidence its response lacked the appropriate thoroughness and clarity. We have seen no evidence to indicate it told the resident the case was closed.
When the resident made her stage 2 complaint she raised a concern that she had reported racially motivated ASB on multiple occasions in 2022, and 2023. We acknowledge the serious nature of this allegation, and do not seek to dispute the resident’s concerns. The evidence seen for this investigation shows the landlord investigated this concern thoroughly. This included asking the relevant officer for a detailed timeline of reports of ASB received both written and verbally from the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously.
The landlord appropriately opened a new ASB investigation in relation to the concerns the resident raised about noise nuisance from her neighbour’s dog. The evidence shows it visited the resident to discuss her concerns, reviewed evidence she had provided, and spoke with the neighbour. These actions were appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord decided the case did not meet the threshold for further investigation. That it did not communicate this to the resident at the time was a further failing in its communication about ASB. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to wait a further 2 months (its stage 2 complaint response) for the landlord to confirm its position.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position that it had found no evidence the resident had made any reports of racially motivated ASB. This showed transparency and it communicated its position with clarity. Given the serious nature of the concerns the resident had raised, that it did not signpost the resident to report any further concerns to the police (the appropriate body to investigate hate crime) was a shortcoming in its response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave a detailed breakdown of the actions it had taken in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB. This went some way to putting right the errors in its stage 1 complaint response. That it did not apologise or acknowledge the lack of detail and empathy in its earlier response was inappropriate. The landlord also set out its position on the resident’s parking space, which was appropriate, and also encouraged her to formally enter the request. This was supportive and reasonable in the circumstances. It is unclear whether the resident followed up on this.
The landlord explained that it was unwilling to grant the resident a transfer, and set out its reasons. While it is noted the resident was disappointed with its decision, the landlord set out its position with clarity. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The response also admitted a failing in its communication about the later ASB case related to the dog noise nuisance, and a lack of records of the case closure in April 2023. That it did not apologise or offer appropriate redress for these admitted failings was unreasonable. This is evidence the landlord failed to adopt our dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right.
When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the ASB with her neighbour was ongoing. She said she had experienced “aggressive” behaviour from her neighbour. While the serious nature of this concern is acknowledged this later report of ASB is not within the scope of our investigation. This is because the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this later concern as a complaint. At the time of the resident’s stage 2 complaint she explained that things with her neighbour were “ok” and she did not want it to investigate further. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident reported further concerns around this time. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns, we recommend the landlord urgently meets with her to discuss her concerns about ongoing ASB.
The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to provide evidence throughout. When the resident did supply evidence the landlord gave it the appropriate consideration. However, its communication about its findings, and the ASB case more generally was poor. We have see no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment or action plan, in line with accepted best practice. Considering the above failings we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £150 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

Request for permission to install CCTV

When the resident made her complaint about the CCTV issue she raised a concern that the landlord’s decision to refuse her request to install her own CCTV amounted to discrimination, as it had allowed other people to install CCTV. While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. She may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter further.
It is worth noting that we have considered the landlord’s response to her concerns about the conduct of its staff, and its handling of the CCTV issue. We have assessed whether its approach was reasonable in the circumstances. What we have not done, is make a determination on whether the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination as defined by the Equality Act 2010.
The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the resident’s request for permission to install CCTV from October 2022. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to this request at the time. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by an unreasonable delay to find out the landlord’s position on the matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepted that its communication about the issue was poor and that it could not assess its handling of the matter due to a “cyber incident”. It is noted the landlord’s ability to assess the matter in detail was impacted by the cyber incident. However, that it did not offer redress for its admitted failing was inappropriate.
The resident had to wait until its stage 1 response of June 2023 for an answer to her query. It is noted the landlord said in its response that it outlined its position on the matter in November 2022. However, we have seen no evidence to corroborate this claim, and the resident disputed having received this correspondence. Considering the information available it is reasonable to conclude the resident did not receive the letter and had to wait 8 months for a response to her request. This inconvenienced her.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was detailed and addressed the resident’s concerns about alleged discrimination. By providing statistics about when it had approved and refused CCTV it appropriately addressed the resident’s concern. Its response sought to reassure her that it had not discriminated against her. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and addressed them in detail.
It is noted the resident was disappointed the landlord initially refused her request for CCTV. It is not for us to determine whether it should have given permission or not. Our role is to assess its response to her concerns, and the landlord’s response at stage 2, went some way to putting right its earlier failings. That it encouraged the resident to provide details of the CCTV units she had installed was appropriate and evidence it wanted to give a retrospective request due consideration.
We have seen evidence the landlord contacted the resident in July 2024 and refused her request. As this occurred after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it is not within the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the matter from November 2023 onwards, she may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord.
Considering the landlord’s poor communication in its handling of the matter, and the unreasonable delay in giving the resident its position we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where a “minor failure by the in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right”. We have therefore determined an order for £100 is appropriate in the circumstances to put things right for the resident.

Reports of repairs

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non emergency repairs should “always” be completed within 28 calendar days
As part of her stage 1 complaint the resident raised concerns about various repairs in the property. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response apologised for its handling of those repairs and offered the resident £300 in compensation. The resident did not raise a concern about these repairs in her stage 2 complaint, and only mentioned the shower repair (which was not mentioned at stage 1). Therefore, we have determined the repairs raised at stage 1 are not within the scope of this investigation as those matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. This approach is taken in line with paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme.
We have therefore only considered the landlord’s handling of the shower repair as part of this investigation, as this is the only repair issue that has exhausted its complaints procedure.
The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the shower repair from 27 July 2023, and did not complete the repair until 25 September 2023. This was outside the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay.
The landlord accepted this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £250 for its handling of the repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it adopted our dispute resolution principle of putting things right. Its response offered little in the way of learning about its handling of the repair, and what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. This was a shortcoming in its response. The landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. Considering, the failings identified above we have determined the landlord’s offer of £250 was appropriate in the circumstances and fully put things right for the resident.

Concerns about staff conduct

When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only as far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
It is noted the raised a concern about the conduct of the officer responsible for investigating her reports of ASB when she made her stage 2 complaint, in August 2023. She said the officer’s handling of her ASB case, and CCTV request amounted to misconduct and discrimination. While we can look at staff conduct in some cases and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.
The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The evidence shows that when the landlord was investigating the resident’s stage 2 complaint, in September 2023, it investigated the concerns raised against the officer in question, and asked for a detailed breakdown of the actions they had taken in relation to the reports of ASB. The landlord set out its position that it had investigated and found no evidence the resident had been discriminated against.
The evidence we have seen as part of this investigation shows the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns and set out the findings to the resident. As the resident’s concerns mainly centered around the handling of the ASB case amounting to misconduct that it focused its investigation on the actions taken related to ASB were appropriate.
While we acknowledge we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of ASB, this relates to the landlord’s communication about ASB, and failures to update the resident. It is not for us to determine whether these failure amount to misconduct by an individual officer, as that is not within our remit. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. We have seen evidence it thoroughly investigated her concerns about misconduct and discrimination. As such we have determined there was no maladministration in its handling of the matter.

Concerns about the landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account

The landlord’s arrears policy states that it “robustly” manages the non payment of rent. The policy states that it will support residents to maintain their tenancy before pursuing legal proceedings.
As part of her stage 2 complaint, the resident asked the landlord to consider a rent reduction due to her circumstances. The landlord refused this request in its stage 2 complaint response. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent and/or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to get independent legal advice, and contact the First Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.
The resident raised a concern about the tone of the landlord’s arrears letters when she made her complaint in April 2023. The resident’s concerns are noted and we do not seek to dispute the impact of the letters on the resident.
The evidence we have seen for this investigation shows that during the period of her complaint the resident was in rent arrears. The landlord sent the resident arrears letters in February and April 2023. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s concerns, we have seen no evidence to indicate that the content of the letters were unprofessional or “threatening”. It is noted the landlord did warn about possible ramifications for the resident’s tenancy and possible legal action it could pursue. The landlord’s approach was in line with accepted practice within the sector. The letters also signposted the resident to various support services it and external agencies offered in terms of financial hardship. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord took a supportive approach to the resident’s arrears.
The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to set out its position on the resident’s rent arrears. That it said it would review the wording of the letters was appropriate in the circumstance. This is evidence it had due consideration for the impact the wording of the letters had on her. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and showed learning. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirrors that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy states that t will use any offers of compensation made as part of a complaint response to offset rent arrears.
The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the tone and content of the landlord’s rent arrears letters in February 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint investigation at the time was a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint.
That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident. The resident experienced further time and trouble due to the need to seek assistance from this Service in April 2023 in order to get a response to her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 21 working days later than the deadline set out in our complaint letter on the resident’s behalf. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered redress for the delay.
As part of her stage 2 complaint the resident raised a concern that the landlord used the compensation offered at stage 1 to offset rent arrears. While the resident was evidently unhappy about this approach, the landlord acted in line with its compensation and arrears policies. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also set out that the compensation offered would be used to offset any arrears. The landlord’s response was clear and transparent in how it said it would progress with the compensation offer.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 59 working days after the resident made the complaint. This was an unreasonable delay and a further failing in its complaint handling that inconvenienced the resident. The resident, again, experienced a further inconvenience due the need to seek assistance from this Service in order to get a response to her complaint. The landlord offered the same amount of compensation at stage 2 as it did at stage 1, but for a lengthier delay. This was inappropriate and evidence it failed to have due consideration for the length of delay at stage 2.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also lacked the appropriate learning about its complaint handling delays and cited “high customer contact” as the reason. This did little to build trust with the resident.
Considering the above failings we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where an offer of redress does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident. As such we have determined an order for a further £75 is appropriate to put right the errors in its complaint handling in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s request for permission to install CCTV.
In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its management of her rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about an alleged data breach is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
2. Pay the resident £425 in compensation. Its offer of £100 for its complaint handling should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s request for permission to install CCTV.
  3. £175 in recognition of the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord:
1. Meets with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns about ASB, and noise disturbance. It should take appropriate action, in line with its ASB policy
2. Pay the resident the £250 it offered for errors in its handling of the shower repair. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.