From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202309520)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309520

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as a secure tenant since June 2012. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. On 12 January 2023, the resident reported an incident of ASB. He said his property had been vandalised. On 16 January 2023 the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss his report. It contacted the police the same day and asked them what action they had taken.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 January 2023 and said it tried to contact him but without evidence it could not take the case further. It said if it did not hear back from him by 31 January 2023, it would close the case. The resident spoke with the landlord on 27 January 2023. He said he wanted to move to another area.
  4. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbourhood on 13 February 2023 to gather evidence of ASB. The landlord asked the police for a response on 2 March 2023. On 9 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it did not have any evidence, and it could not act if it did not know who the perpetrators were.
  5. The resident complained on 16 May 2023. He said the landlord had not provided safe living conditions. He said he had reported incidents and provided evidence to the landlord and police, but they had done nothing. He said he needed the landlord to move him as the incidents were affecting his son, who had learning disabilities, and his mental health.
  6. In its complaint response on 30 June 2023, the landlord said it could not consider a management transfer as it needed the police to confirm he was at risk. It said it closed the ASB case as it had not identified alleged perpetrators but had opened a new ASB case on 3 May 2023 following a further report. It said it had asked its tenancy sustainment team to help the resident with his rehousing request. It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 July 2023. He said he felt unsupported and wanted an urgent meeting with the landlord.
  8. In its final response on 20 October 2023 the landlord said it did not have the same powers as the police to deal with criminal issues. It said because the evidence the resident provided did not identify an individual, it could not act through the courts. It said the police had not given evidence confirming he was at risk. It said it would meet him to discuss his housing options. It apologised for the delay in escalating the complaint and acknowledged 3 failings in the way it dealt with his reports. It offered further compensation of £350 for these failings.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had not considered his evidence. He said it had failed him, ignored appointments and his reports, and it told him different things.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that he had experienced ASB since moving to the property. The Ombudsman can only consider the landlord’s actions from May 2022. This is because under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate matters the resident did not bring to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. This would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
  2. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB after the landlord sent its final response on 20 October 2023. The Ombudsman cannot investigate these. This is because in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the involvement of the Ombudsman. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be raised with the landlord as a new formal complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman has noted the resident referred to the actions of the police. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the police and so cannot investigate their actions. If the resident wishes to take forward a complaint about the police, he should do so through the police complaints procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges that ASB cases involving allegations, sometimes with little or no corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve. In addition, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether ASB took place. The Ombudsman can decide whether the landlord followed its policy and acted reasonably. For example, when the landlord received a report, did it assess the report, did it offer support to the resident, and did it work with other agencies.
  2. The landlord has a clear responsibility to deal with reports of ASB in line with legislation and its policy. In line with the Crime and Policing Act 2014, the landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as actions that cause, or are likely to cause, harassment, alarm, distress, or annoyance. The policy says harassment can include verbal abuse and damage to property.
  3. The landlord says it will log reports of ASB and take a victim-centred approach. It will provide advice and support and make referrals to support agencies. It will report incidents to the police or support victims to do so. As part of its approach, the landlord must do risk assessments to assess harm caused. This should identify vulnerabilities and guide the landlord’s response.
  4. The policy says damage to property is generally a criminal offence and the responsibility of the police. It says when the police provide evidence, it can act against a perpetrator, and when a resident provides a crime reference number, it will investigate within 5 working days. It says it will generally not lead on such incidents, but in some serious cases it will look at options for taking legal action.
  5. The landlord’s management transfer policy says it uses transfers in a small number of circumstances, including where a resident experiences ASB that puts them at risk of serious harm. It says it will only consider a transfer if the police confirm in writing there is a serious risk of harm.
  6. Records provided by the landlord show it spoke with the resident on 11 January 2023 about reports of vandalism that he made to the police. The records say it asked the resident to send details of the police reports. The records also say the landlord discussed the resident’s housing options, including a ‘homeless at home’ move and a managed transfer. The resident told the landlord where he wanted to move to, and the landlord told him it did not have properties in those areas. It gave him advice about other housing options.
  7. The resident made an ASB report to the landlord on 12 January 2023. He said there had been regular vandalism to his home and car, as well as verbal abuse. He said this had been happening for several years and neighbour’s children and their friends caused most of the problems. He said this caused a great deal of stress and anxiety, and his family lived in fear.
  8. The landlord opened an ASB case and on 16 January 2023 tried to call the resident about his report. It also contacted the police for information about the incidents. On 20 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had tried to contact him between 16 and 20 January 2023. It reasonably explained that without evidence or contact from him it could not take the case further.
  9. The landlord’s records show a second officer spoke with the resident on 27 January 2023. During the call, the resident said he wanted to move to a specific area. The officer said the landlord did not have properties in that area, but he could register for a transfer to another area or consider a mutual exchange. The resident said he had expected a call from the officer on 17 January 2023, which he did not receive. The officer apologised for not calling, which they said was due to an error. The resident also said another officer told him he could register as homeless, and this would increase his housing priority. The landlord said he could not register as homeless while he had an active tenancy. It apologised that the other officer, who was new in post, was not aware of the policy. It sent him information about homelessness and housing options. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord did a risk assessment with the resident, which would have identified any vulnerabilities.
  10. The Ombudsman has found the landlord’s response at this time was mainly reasonable. It responded in a reasonable time to the resident’s report on 12 January 2023, contacted the police, opened an ASB case, and explained it needed evidence. It acknowledged an error with a missed call, apologised for incorrect information given to him and provided information about housing options. However, there is no evidence the landlord did a risk assessment. This was a failing by the landlord as it did not have a clear assessment of any vulnerabilities and how this might affect the way it dealt with the reports of ASB.
  11. On 3 February 2023 the landlord told the resident it had contacted the police again on 27 January 2023 but had not received a reply. It asked the resident to report any further incidents. The resident reported an incident of vandalism on 6 February 2023 and the same day the landlord told him it had arranged to visit his area to gather evidence. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a reasonable step for the landlord to take at this time, as there was a lack of police evidence, and it was trying to find out whether it had grounds to act.
  12. Records show the landlord knocked on doors in the area on 13 February 2023. Its records say the door knock did not provide direct evidence of who was causing the ASB. The landlord emailed the police again the same day.
  13. On 9 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it had closed the case. It said it had knocked on doors but had found no supporting evidence and the police had not provided it with evidence about his reported incidents. It said without knowing who the alleged perpetrators were, it could not act against them.
  14. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord needed evidence to act against individuals. It is clear the landlord followed its policy and tried to work with the police to get evidence. Records show the landlord emailed the police several times. However, the police do not appear to have responded to the landlord’s requests. It is not clear whether the landlord considered escalating its request through the partnership arrangements it had with the police. This may have prompted the police to respond, but the Ombudsman is unable to say whether, in this case, the police would have been able to give the landlord the supporting evidence it needed to act. Because of the lack of evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it was closing the case and to ask him to report further incidents. 
  15. On 6 May 2023, the resident reported another incident of vandalism. He said the landlord took no interest in the evidence and he was living in fear and felt like a prisoner in his home. He highlighted the effect the incidents had on his mental health and his son’s learning disabilities. The landlord contacted the police and called the resident on 9 May 2023. It booked an appointment with the resident on 12 May 2023 to discuss his report. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. However, there is no evidence the landlord did a risk assessment. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to do an assessment as the resident had clearly raised concerns about his family’s wellbeing.
  16. The resident complained on 16 May 2023 that he had sent evidence to the landlord, but it had not taken any meaningful action. He wanted the landlord to investigate his reports and rehouse him. On 18 May 2023 the landlord contacted the resident about video evidence he had sent. It asked if he knew the names and addresses of the individuals in the videos. The resident replied and said it was not his responsibility to know their names and he expected the landlord and police to act. In response the landlord told the resident it had arranged for an officer to visit him on 25 May 2023.
  17. On 9 June 2023 the landlord asked the resident if he consented to it referring him for support to the local authority victim champion. On 21 June 2023 the landlord told the resident it was taking no further action. It said it was closing the case because it could not identify the people in the video footage, and he had not reported any more incidents. It said it had referred him to the local authority’s victim champion. The Ombudsman has noted the referral to the local authority was 5 months after the first report of ASB, and has found it could have done this sooner, considering the resident’s vulnerabilities.
  18. In its complaint response on 30 June 2023 the landlord said the resident made general enquiries in December 2021, January 2022, and March 2022 when he mentioned harassment and vandalism. It apologised it had not dealt with those as ASB reports. It said following his report in January 2023, it investigated and contacted the police but because the police had not identified a perpetrator, it could not act. It apologised for not calling the resident on 17 January 2023 and said an officer had given incorrect information about homelessness. The landlord said it could not consider the resident for a management transfer as this needed the police to confirm he was at risk. It said it had asked its tenancy sustainment team to support him with his rehousing request.
  19. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable response at this time. The reports the resident made in 2021 and 2022 are outside the scope of this investigation, and because of this the Ombudsman cannot comment on how the landlord dealt with these. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the minor errors when it did not call the resident as promised, and for giving him wrong information about homelessness. The landlord’s policy is clear that it cannot consider a management transfer without evidence of risk from the police. However, the Ombudsman has found there were failures by the landlord as it could have acted sooner to offer support on his rehousing request and refer him to the victim champion.
  20. The resident escalated his complaint. He said there had been a lack of action, and he felt unsupported. He wanted a meeting to discuss a resolution. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord responded to this request.
  21. In its final response on 20 October 2023 the landlord said it did not have the powers to deal with criminal issues in the way the police could, and it could only act through the civil courts. It said to do this it needed strong evidence to satisfy a judge. It said it had tried to get information from the police, but the police had not given it the evidence it needed. It said none of the resident’s evidence identified an individual, but it would continue to work with the police.
  22. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord could not act against another resident without strong evidence, as it would need to present this at court. The resident provided video evidence, but without names, the tenancy action the landlord could take was limited. The landlord’s ASB policy makes it clear that in cases of criminal damage, it expects the police to lead. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord could not reasonably be expected to gather evidence of criminal damage. This is because it has limited powers and resources.
  23. On the resident’s request for a move, the landlord said its policy made it clear it would only consider a management transfer if the police confirmed a serious risk of harm. It said the police had not given supporting evidence and because of this it could not move the resident. It said it had asked its tenancy specialist team to contact the resident to discuss other rehousing options. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, but it could have done this sooner.
  24. The landlord said there were 3 areas when it did not meet its standards. It said it did not call him on 17 January 2023 as agreed, it gave inaccurate advice about homelessness, and it did not deal with his earlier reports in 2021 and 2022. It offered £300 compensation for these failures. Potentially the most significant failure was the failure to act following the resident’s enquiries in 2021 and 2022, as the landlord could have considered the resident’s situation sooner. However, these are outside the scope of this investigation.
  25. The landlord also appears to have not done risk assessments following the resident’s reports. The resident made it clear that the ASB was having a significant effect on him and his son, who has learning disabilities. A risk assessment should have identified this and would have guided the landlord’s response, especially on what support it could have considered. It is the Ombudsman’s view the lack of risk assessments delayed the offers of support. The Ombudsman has found this was a service failure by the landlord.
  26. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord responded reasonably to the reports of ASB. This is because it dealt with reports in a timely way, tried to engage with the police, and kept the resident updated. The landlord acknowledged some failures in its final response and offered compensation for these. However, there were further failures related to the lack of risk assessments, which led to a delay in offering support. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the Ombudsman finds service failure when there has been a failure. Because of this, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.
  27. Although the resident did not seek compensation and wanted to move, he did not meet the criteria under the landlord’s policy. The Ombudsman appreciates this will be a disappointing finding for the resident. In April 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the offer of support did not result in a property move and he was still experiencing ASB. Because of this the Ombudsman landlord must contact the resident to discuss ongoing ASB and his housing options.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints in 10 working days. When a resident escalates their complaint, it will send a final response in 20 working days. This is line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB on 16 May 2023 and the landlord responded 33 working days later on 30 June 2023. It offered £50 for the delay in responding. The Ombudsman has found this was a reasonable offer of compensation in the circumstances.
  3. The resident escalated his complaint on 10 July 2023. He said he said he wanted an urgent meeting to discuss a resolution to his complaint.
  4. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 30 September 2023, the landlord sent its final response on 20 October 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and offered a further £50 compensation for not meeting its service standards.
  5. It is the Ombudsman’s view the apology and compensation were reasonable. However, because the landlord did not acknowledge the escalation, it did not respond to the request for an urgent meeting. This meant the resident had to contact the Ombudsman, which caused inconvenience. It is the Ombudsman view that the failure to escalate the complaint was a service failure and the offer of £50 in the final response was insufficient in the circumstances. Because of this, landlord must pay the resident a further £50 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its
    1. Handling of reports of ASB.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures set out in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £550 compensation for the failures found in this report. This is inclusive of the £400 already offered and should be deducted if already paid. It must pay this within 4 weeks of the date of the report. It must pay compensation directly to the resident and not offset it against any arrears.
  3. The landlord must meet the resident to do a risk assessment and discuss his housing options.
  4. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of the report.