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 (202320967)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320967

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:
    1. the impact of the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) issues on the resident’s health.
    2. the landlord’s handling of:
      1. allegations of ASB about the resident, and her concerns about information used by its officer.
      2. counter allegations of ASB.
      3. the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since October 2022.  The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, including that she suffers from anxiety, depression and PTSD.
  2. Records show that in April 2023 another party made a report to the landlord about an incident of alleged ASB involving the resident and her dogs.  Following this, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the incident and the allegations that had been made.
  3. Following further communication with the resident and other parties, the landlord issued a first warning letter to the resident in May 2023.  In this the landlord said:
    1. it was evident the resident’s 2 dogs had not always been kept under control in the communal area and the locality.
    2. the resident was required to keep her dogs on a lead at all times while in a public place.
    3. it had been alleged that the resident had been verbally abusive, shouting and swearing, when she was blocked in by the other party’s vehicle.
    4. it accepted that the resident should not have been blocked in by the other party and that the resident had alleged the other party was verbally abusive. It said the other party’s landlord was addressing this under its own ASB policies and procedures.
    5. further breaches of tenancy could result in it taking action against the resident which could ultimately lead to the loss of her home.
  4. Later in May 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said she did not accept the warning letter. She said:
    1. the other party had made a “malicious report” that her dogs had been aggressive.
    2. there was no evidence her dogs were dangerous or that she had been abusive.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 9 June 2023. It said:
    1. its officer had explained to the resident by email that evidence provided did not show who was at fault.
    2. its officer had adopted a partnership approach.
    3. its officer had also considered “aggravating features” that the resident had refused access to the local authority dog handling team and that it had previously had cause to advise her about “dog fouling”.
    4. it considered the first stage warning letter to be reasonable and proportionate.
    5. it acknowledged that its complaint response was delay. It awarded the resident £150 in respect of this.
  6. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 June 2023. She said the landlord’s officer had “lied” that she had denied access to the local authority dog handling unit. She said his “malicious behaviour” was causing her mental health problems. In subsequent correspondence the resident said the landlord had also lied that she was responsible for dog fouling. She requested increased compensation.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 14 September 2023. It said:
    1. it had established the resident had no permission from it to keep dogs at the property.
    2. it had on record that it had previously emailed her about dog fouling.
    3. the local authority’s dog handling unit had said it had made 2 attempts to visit the resident and had been refused access.
    4. it was satisfied its officer completed a “full and equitable” investigation.
    5. it disputed that its officer had lied and said they had considered all the relevant factors.
    6. it had noted the other party’s unacceptable behaviour, which was being addressed by their landlord.
  8. The landlord said it had found no failing in its handling of the ASB report. It noted that its complaint response had been delayed and awarded £50 in recognition of this. However, it said it had mistakenly processed an earlier payment to the resident of £280, instead of the £150 awarded in its stage 1 response. It said it had offset the £50 awarded against the £130 overpayment but the resident would still benefit from the £80 overpayment.
  9. In March 2024, following further contact from the resident, landlord issued a second stage 2 complaint response. The landlord noted the resident’s concern that it had treated her differently because of her age. It said:
    1. it had seen no evidence the resident had been treated differently due to her age.
    2. while the decision to issue the warning letter was reasonable, the language used in the warning letter could have been “softer” given that it was a “first warning”. It apologised for this.
    3. it considered the £150 already awarded to the resident was reasonable.
  10. During our investigation the landlord said it accepted information, that the resident refused access to the dog handling unit, had not been validated (by seeking confirmation from the local authority).

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident said the landlord’s handling of ASB issues had a negative impact on her health. We are sorry to learn of this. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  3. While the resident’s concerns are acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such as claim if she requests this.
  4. It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s permissions and pets policy sets out that residents need the landlord’s permission to keep a pet in their home. The policy states that when the landlord makes decisions around this it will protect its interest in the property and consider the impact on neighbouring homes.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that it will work in partnership with others, both internal and external, to tackle ASB. It sets out that it will treat residents in a “fair, equitable and consistent manner” and will consider the needs and vulnerabilities of residents during its handling of ASB cases. It states that it will consider a range of interventions, including warning letters.
  3. Following a cyber-attack in June 2022 the landlord introduced an interim complaints policy which was in place until March 2024. It aimed to acknowledge new complaints within 10 working days and respond in within 20 working days. At stage 2 it aimed to log requests within 10 working days and respond within 40 working days. Since April 2024 it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Handling of the allegations of ASB about the resident, and her concerns about information used by its officer

  1. The ASB report about the resident’s dogs was made to the landlord in April 2023 and related to an incident in January 2023. Following this, the landlord made timely contact with the resident, and the other party. It also contacted its neighbourhood officer to establish whether it had record of any issues raised about the resident’s dogs. In addition, it contacted the other party’s landlord and the local authority. During its contact with the resident, the landlord obtained her version of events and requested video evidence she said she held of the incident. These actions were in line with its ASB policy and evidence the landlord acted to complete appropriate investigations following the report.
  2. The landlord told the resident it had reviewed the video footage, and had been unable to corroborate allegations after reviewing this. It said it had therefore considered other aggravating features in the case. It said this included that it had been told by the local authority the resident had refused access to its dog handling unit on 2 occasions. But there is no record of its contact with the local authority about this. The landlord has since acknowledged that it did not contact the local authority to verify this information.
  3. Throughout her contact, the resident had raised her concern about the information used by the landlord’s officer – that she had refused access to the local authority’s dog handling unit. She asked who the landlord had spoken to at the local authority to obtain this information. She also provided email contact she had with the local authority after the landlord’s warning letter, which referred to arrangements it had made for a “first visit” about her dogs.
  4. Instead of fully addressing questions or the information the resident had provided, the landlord simply repeated that the local authority had told it she had refused access twice. Not only did this response leave her concerns largely unanswered, but it did also not reflect where the landlord had obtained the information. This has resulted in the resident feeling her concerns about the decision to issue her with a warning have not been robustly investigated, and that information she had provided had been ignored.
  5.  The landlord’s decision to issue a first warning was not based on this factor alone. As noted above, it had conducted other appropriate work to investigate the report it had received. It may be the case that the landlord would have concluded that a first warning was a proportionate course of action, even without that information.  Nonetheless, the landlord should have taken reasonable and appropriate steps to verify information it had received and which it was relying upon. Without doing so, it cannot fully demonstrate that it acted in a fair, equitable and consistent manner, in line with its ASB policy. As a result, we have ordered that the landlord review whether its warning to the resident of May 2023 was appropriate in view of all of the circumstances of the case.
  6. We have also noted that the landlord subsequently acknowledged in its later complaint response that the language it had used could have been softer, given it was a first warning. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for the “harshness” of this warning, but that came nearly a year after the resident had first complained. The landlord should reasonably have acknowledged and apologised for this at an earlier stage.
  7. Overall, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the allegations of ASB about the resident, and her concerns information used by its officer.

Handling of counter allegation of ASB

  1. The landlord’s warning to the resident acknowledged that the other party should not have blocked the resident in during the incident of January 2023, and that they had been verbally abusive towards the resident. It told the resident that the other party’s landlord was addressing this under its own ASB policies and procedure. It directed the resident to contact the other landlord with any queries relating to this. That was appropriate given that the other party’s landlord was in the position to act on the resident’s concerns about this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s initial complaint response to the resident was within timescales set out in its interim complaints policy. However, it acknowledged and apologised for the time the resident spent chasing her complaint. Its stage 2 complaint response to the resident was delayed. While the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 June 2023, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 complaint response until 14 September 2023. It communicated with the resident during this time, but its eventual response was outside its target of 40 working days. The landlord made a total award of £200 in respect of these complaint handling delays and that was appropriate in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord issued a second stage 2 complaint response to the resident in March 2024, which made no reference to the earlier stage 2 response. This was in response to further contact from the resident about the matter. The landlord had already provided responses at both stages of its complaints process. Given this, it should appropriately have directed the resident to approach the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy. That it did not do so confused and lengthened its consideration of the complaint.
  3. The landlord should have adequate systems and processes in place to record the position and outcome of complaints. We have recommended that it review the circumstances that led to it issuing a second stage 2 complaint response on this case. This is with the aim of ensuring adequate systems and processes are in place to avoid this error being repeated.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the impact of the landlord’s handling of ASB issues on her health fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the allegations of ASB about the resident, and her concerns information used by its officer.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord handling of counter allegations of ASB.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of:
      1. £200 in recognition of the impact of failings in its handling of allegations of ASB made about the resident and her concerns about information used by its officer.
      2. any awards already made to the resident in respect of this may be deducted from the total.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. review the first warning letter issued to the resident in May 2023 and consider if this is still appropriate.
    2. remind staff of the importance of verifying information it receives about an ASB incident.

Recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. pay the resident £200 previously awarded in respect of complaint handling failings if it has not done so already.
    2. review whether additional training is needed for staff around the appropriate tone for warning letters.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review the circumstances that led to it issuing a second stage 2 complaint response on this case, with the aim of ensuring systems and processes are in place to avoid this error being repeated.