Clarion Housing Association Limited (202316614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316614

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of records relating to the resident.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement. The property is a two-bedroom flat which the resident has occupied since 2021. Prior to this the resident lived in another property owned by the landlord. The resident has no recorded vulnerabilities.
4. On 15 October 2020 the resident requested the landlord provide personal data it held about her. Data from the resident’s customer account contained markers that they had a ‘poor payment history’ and a history of anti-social behaviour (ASB). The resident said this was incorrect and asked the landlord to amend their records. On 11 June 2021 the resident requested their data again, and the markers remained.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 28 September 2021 that the markers associated with their account had not been removed, and that they were incorrect. The landlord produced a stage one response where it apologised to the resident and committed to amending the ASB marker.
6. On 17 March 2023 the resident raised a second complaint about the markers associated with their customer account. The resident said:
   1. they had previously complained to the landlord about the markers associated with their customer account and the landlord said it would remove the incorrect markers
   2. they had recently obtained updated personal data from the landlord, and the incorrect markers remained
   3. they were unhappy the landlord had not made the changes it had committed to do in its previous stage one complaint response
   4. they felt the landlord had been negligent in storing incorrect information, and asked for their records to be updated
7. In its stage one response on 2 June 2023 the landlord said:
   1. it apologised for the concern the resident had about the poor payment history marker and said it held no documents to suggest the resident had a poor payment history
   2. the poor payment marker related to an internal process, and it would not have a negative impact on the resident or result in any actions being taken against the resident
   3. the landlord’s previous stage one response explained the ASB record had been deactivated but it would still show up that the resident had previously registered an ASB incident
   4. it had asked its IT department to see if the ASB marker could be removed
   5. it apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, and offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay
8. On 9 June 2023 the resident escalated their complaint and said:
   1. they didn’t want the poor payment history marker on their account if they did not have a poor payment history
   2. the landlord had previously made the same promises two years prior in its initial stage one and had not followed through on these
   3. they wanted to move into a new property and had been prevented from doing so as the ASB marker incorrectly noted they had a record of ASB
9. In its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023 the landlord said:
   1. the poor payment history marker is auto–generated and it notifies the landlord to review the resident’s rental account, and that if it does not identify arrears it will deactivate the marker
   2. it had now removed the poor payment history marker from the resident’s account, and it apologised for the time it had taken to do so
   3. it had tried to remove the ASB marker after the resident’s first complaint in 2021, but the correct process was not followed, and apologised for this
   4. the ASB marker had now been removed by the landlord’s IT team
   5. the ASB marker would not have affected the resident being shortlisted for another property
   6. it offered the resident an additional £500 in compensation for the time it had taken to resolve the issue, and for its failure to follow its own policies and processes
10. On 4 September 2023 the resident brought their complaint to this Service as they were not satisfied that the landlord had fully addressed the complaint. The resident said they had requested the landlord supply their personal data on 28 July 2023, and the data provided showed the markers remained on their customer account.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of information relating to the resident

11. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer residents £50 to £250 in compensation for a service failure which has had some impact on a resident. For occasions where the landlord has made a considerable failure but there is no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord can offer compensation of £250 to £700.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will adopt a supportive approach when dealing with residents who report, witness or are a victim of ASB.
13. This Service has produced the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which outlines how landlords should manage their complaints processes and put matters right following a complaint. A landlord can offer a resident several remedies following a complaint, these include steps such as taking action, apologising to the resident and offering compensation. Any remedy a landlord offers must be followed through to completion.
14. The resident initially complained to the landlord about markers associated with their data on 28 September 2021. Following this complaint the landlord said:
    1. the ASB marker was not accurate as it said the resident had a history of ASB, but the resident had reported an ASB incident
    2. the ASB marker had been added in error, and it had removed the marker
    3. as it had failed to record the resident’s ASB report accurately it apologised and offered the resident £250 in compensation
    4. it explained the ‘poor payment history’ marker was an internal prompt to review the resident’s rental account, it did not mean the resident had a history of mismanaging their rental payments
15. In line with the Code to fully rectify the complaint the landlord should have ensured the ASB incident was recorded correctly, and the resident’s customer account no longer showed they had a history of ASB. It would have been upsetting for the resident to know the landlord had recorded them as having a history of ASB. As this was incorrect, and they had instead reported an ASB incident. Considering the landlord’s ASB policy commits to supporting those who report ASB, it should have ensured it fully addressed the resident’s complaint.
16. On 1 April 2023 the resident requested the landlord supply them with updated data it held about them. The data the resident received showed the ASB and poor payment history markers remained on their account. Considering the landlord had made a commitment to updating the ASB marker it was inappropriate that the ASB flag remained.
17. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it believed it had deleted the ASB marker in 2021, but it had followed the wrong process. This meant the ASB marker remained. The landlord’s records show on 17 November 2021 a member of the landlord’s staff said they had deleted the ASB marker, but the landlord later realised its IT team needed to remove the marker.
18. The landlord confirmed the ASB marker was removed on 14 June 2023. After the resident complained on 11 April 2023 the landlord took appropriate steps to remove the incorrect marker, and it did so within a reasonable timeframe. This was appropriate.
19. However, the landlord had previously committed to removing the ASB marker, so it should have done so after its 2021 complaint response. To put matters right, and to act in accordance with the code, after its first stage one response the landlord should have checked the marker had been successfully removed. This would have ensured the landlord had adequately resolved the resident’s complaint.
20. Regarding the ‘poor payment history’ marker the landlord said the marker was an internal notification for staff to review the resident’s rental account. The term ‘poor payment history’ did not reflect how the resident administered their rental account, or that the resident had a history of being in arrears. From the resident’s perspective the term ‘poor payment history’ would have indicated that the landlord had classified them as having a poor history of paying rent.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord said when a poor payment history marker appears on a resident’s account it will prompt a member of staff to review the residents account. If there are arrears on the account, then the landlord will take action. If there are no arrears associated with the account, then the marker will be deactivated.
22. The landlord said it removed the poor payment history marker on 14 June 2023, this was appropriate. However, after receiving their stage 2 response the resident asked the landlord for a copy of their personal data for an unrelated matter. The resident said when they received the data on 28 July 2023 the poor payment marker remained.
23. The landlord has supplied this Service with an updated copy of markers associated with the resident’s account. The resident has a poor payment history marker, and a rent arrears marker linked to their account. The resident’s current rent statement shows they are not in arrears.
24. The harm caused to the resident in this instance would be low as the markers were on the landlord’s internal systems, and they were not publicly available. The landlord’s offer of £500 was fair and reasonable when considering the landlord’s compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. However, the resident’s complaint has not been fully resolved. The poor payment history marker remains on the residents account, despite the landlord agreeing to remove it. Also, the resident’s account says they are in arrears when this is incorrect.
25. As the complaint has not been fully resolved, and there is incorrect data on the residents account the Ombudsman considers a service failure has occurred. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident, and to explain the purpose and process of the payment history markers.

The landlord’s complaint handling

26. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will aim to acknowledge complaints within 10 working days. The landlord will then provide a stage one response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement date. If a resident is not satisfied with their stage one response, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord will acknowledge escalated complaints within 10 working days, it will then provide its stage 2 response within 40 working days.
27. At the time the resident filed a complaint the landlord was operating an interim complaints policy. The landlord’s complaints policy was not in-line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, at the time the landlord was recovering from a cyber security breach which affected their ability to conduct complaint investigations in a timely manner. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to be in-line with the Code.
28. The landlord’s compensation policy is outlined in paragraph 11 of this report.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 May 2023, this was 18 working days after the resident’s complaint. This was outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord provided its stage one response 19 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
30. In its stage one response the landlord apologised for the time it had taken to respond to the resident, and it offered the resident £50 in compensation.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 6 working days after the resident escalated their complaint. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 12 working days after the acknowledgement date. The landlord’s actions during the stage 2 process was in-line with its complaints policy. This was appropriate.
32. The landlord’s complaint handling failings were limited to it acknowledging the resident’s complaint 9 working days late. While this delay would have been inconvenient for the resident, the landlord’s actions would not have had a permanent or significant impact on the resident.
33. The landlord accounted for its own failings to provide timely complaint responses and it offered the resident an apology and £50 in compensation. Considering the circumstances of the landlord’s complaints handling and the compensation offered, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of information relating to the resident.
35. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Orders

36. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to:
    1. pay the compensation of £550 previously offered if it has not yet paid this to the resident
    2. write to the resident to apologise
    3. in this letter the landlord is to explain whether it can correct the records permanently, and if it can when it will do so
    4. in its letter to the resident the landlord is to explain the process behind its customer account markers
37. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is to provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

38. The landlord could consider if there is a more suitable and customer friendly term to use rather than ‘poor payment history’.