Clarion Housing Association Limited (202323617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323617

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 May 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:
1. The resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The repair needed to the communal intercom system.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 16 October 1989. The landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat. The resident lives with his family.
The resident reported in 2018, 2019 and 2021 that the intercom system in his block had broken. In 2022 the landlord logged the repair as major works and passed the repair to the planned works team. The landlord went through a S20 process with the residents. It scheduled the works in 2024.
It is important to note for context that there has been a history of ASB involving the resident and the perpetrator for some years prior to this complaint. In January 2023, the resident reported that the neighbour attacked his front door with a sharp instrument, had played loud music and slammed doors through night. The resident had called the police and ambulance. The resident said it was difficult to communicate how hard the situation was. He said the front door had knife marks on it and recalled to this Service that he feared for his life while his six year old son was in the property also. The perpetrator was removed from the property on that date.
On 17 January 2023, the landlord completed an action plan with the resident, which detailed the following:
1. The resident agreed to complete an incident diary, to provide photos and to call the warden and police if needed.
2. The landlord agreed to increase warden patrols, complete a police disclosure request, and make enquiries with other relevant agencies.
The landlord referred the case to the local CMARAC (Community Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference), and the disclosure request sent to the police.
On 13 February 2023, the landlord reached out to ASB Action to ask for advice on how to handle to the situation moving forward.
The resident reported that perpetrator had returned to the property on 14 February 2023. He said he lived in constant fear and asked why the landlord had let this happen. The landlord sent this to its tenancy specialist team.
The resident reported a further noise incident on 17 February 2023 and expressed concerns as the noise was a sign of deteriorating mental health. The landlord passed the information to its tenancy specialist team.
The landlord sent a warning letter to the perpetrator on 20 February 2023 and held the CMARC conference on 22 February 2023.
The resident reported further noise incidents on 26 February 2023.
The landlord tried to visit the neighbour’s property but on 7 March 2023, it confirmed to the resident that due to the failed visits, it would apply for an injunction and asked the resident to provide a statement to support the application. The landlord resent the request on 15 March 2023.
Due to no contact from the resident, the landlord wrote to him on 27 March 2023 to say it had closed the case. The resident disputed this in an email on 30 March 2023 as he had received no contact from the landlord since January.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord informed the resident it would close the ASB case due to it pursuing legal action again the perpetrator.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 December 2023, in which he complained about the landlord’s handling of the ASB and its failure to protect his family. He also complained about the outstanding repairs to the intercom.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 February 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. It gave a history of the ASB since January 2023 and explained the actions it had taken. It had received no further reports of ASB since March 2023 and had closed the case.
2. It had worked closely with third party organisations such as the police, local authority, and social services. While it could not share the further action taken due to GDPR, it had received no further complaints of ASB and so thought the situation had improved.
3. With regards to the intercom, it confirmed it had been through the S20 process and had sent a letter to all residents on 2 February 2024. It confirmed it would inform all residents of a start date, but it would be around April 2024. It understood the delay was frustrating but said it had a lengthy process to follow.
4. It found no service failure but offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 February 2024. With regards to the intercom, he said the landlord had been aware since 2018 that it needed a repair. With regards to the ASB, the resident was “utterly disgusted” at the landlord’s response and said the landlord had not taken accountability for his wellbeing. While the resident accepted the case may not meet the threshold for taking action, the landlord had failed to address the long-term impact of living next door to a person who had made threats in the past.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2024. The key points were as follows:
1. The intercom works were 50% complete and would finish when it had installed the communal door, which it had on order.
2. It had checked expenditure in relation to the intercom and found a £93.60 charge in 2021/22 and so would refund the resident’s part of this which amounted to £26.91. It also offered £200 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.
3. It said the ASB was complex, but it had followed its ASB policy.
4. It confirmed that warnings were issued to the perpetrator, and it had advised the resident in May of its intention to pursue legal action and confirmed it had received no further reports of ASB.
5. The landlord accepted it could have provided more support and could have reached out to the resident to explain the process.
6. It offered compensation of £50 for the delayed stage 2 response bringing the total compensation offered during the complaint to £300.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident asked for compensation and for the landlord to take his reports of ASB seriously. While the resident still owns the property, he no longer lives there.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s ASB policy splits ASB into 3 categories; crime and noise and other ASB. The thresholds for it investigating ASB is as follows:
1. 3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person, or a member of the same household.
2. 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person, or a member of the same household.
3. 2 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by 2 or more people from different households.
It will log all reports of ASB and referrals to statutory bodies and monitor the outcomes. It will develop robust local partnerships and multi-agency working to address ASB through a range of diversionary activities or enforcement action. It will ensure it considers a range of interventions to deter or prevent ASB and where appropriate it will take legal action. It will provide support and advice to victims of ASB.
The policy states that it will take prompt and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates, with a focus on resolving the problem having regard to its full range of tools and legal powers available. It says it will keep residents informed about the status of their case and appropriately signposted.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

The resident first reported the issues with the intercom in 2018 and had continued to report the issue but did not raise it as a formal complaint until 2024. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint with a reasonable time which would normally be 12 months. Therefore, the Ombudsman will only look at the landlord’s actions in relation to the intercom for the time around this complaint. Any mention of the issue prior to this time is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Not every instance of annoyance reported to a landlord will be something it has the power to act on. A landlord has two main duties when ASB is reported. The first is to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish the nature and extent of the ASB. The second is to evaluate the evidence, and the respective parties’ rights to enjoy their home and decide what action it should take. The Ombudsman’s role is to decide if the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation and whether the actions it took were appropriate to the situation.
The resident reported a serious ASB incident to the landlord on 16 January 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 January 2023 to complete an action plan and discuss the incident with the resident. This was in line with the landlord’s policy which says it would respond to such reports within 5 working days. At that point the landlord knew the perpetrator was not in the property and would not be returning in the immediate future therefore, the risk was reduced. However, it was still important, given the nature of the incident, for the landlord to speak to the resident when it did and to put a clear action in place.
Furthermore, the same day the landlord referred the case to its local CMARAC, completed the actions assigned to it in on the action plan and sent the resident details of the warden to contact should further incidents occur. This swift action highlighted the landlord’s commitment to support the resident and was in line with its policy.
Although the exact date is unclear from the evidence, the landlord’s neighbourhood response officer visited the resident’s block and reported back on the 25 January 2023 that other residents had heard the incident and the loud noise from the perpetrator. It was appropriate of the landlord to undertake a visit to the neighbourhood to understand the situation and to consider the wider impact on the block.
The landlord also reached out to the community psychiatric nurse on 8 February 2023 to learn when the perpetrator was due to return to the property. This further highlights the landlord’s commitment to work to resolve the situation for the resident.
Furthermore, on 13 February 2023 the landlord reached out to ASB Action to ask for advice on how best to deal with the situation. While a landlord can have robust policies to deal with ASB, it is important that they seek help and advice where situations may differ from other experiences. Therefore, the landlord reaching out to experts for advice was positive and further highlights the landlord’s commitment to ensure a safe living environment for all involved.
On 14 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say the perpetrator had returned to the property and explained he had received no update from the landlord. While the landlord cannot be held accountable for third parties not informing it that the perpetrator had returned, the landlord did not properly respond to the resident for 2 days and that, in this situation, was not appropriate. In these situations, landlords need to have effective communication with residents to manage expectations. Instead, it left the resident unaware what action the landlord intended to take.
On 16 February 2023, the landlord told the resident it was holding a case conference the following week which would determine next steps. While that may have been the case, given the violent nature of the incident prior to the perpetrator leaving the property, it would have been useful for the landlord to have considered if further advice or any temporary measures could have been considered while it gathered more information about the perpetrator. The landlord’s lack of further support highlighted a lack of empathy towards the resident.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the incident in January was a serious one in which the perpetrator threatened the resident and his family. Whether the risk was real or perceived the landlords lack of action or consideration of further support following the neighbours return highlighted a lack of regard to the risk felt by the resident living next to the neighbour.
The landlord has not evidenced that it informed the resident of what he should do if a further incident should occur either. While it was in regular contact with partner agencies, who knew the perpetrator had returned to the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given safeguarding advice and details of who to contact should a further incident occur. Not doing so showed a further disregard to the resident’s situation.
Following the perpetrators return to the address, the landlord sent a warning letter setting out the impact the behaviour may have on the tenancy. This was in line with the tenancy and a suitable step to take in the circumstances.
Furthermore, it booked an appointment to speak with the perpetrator to discuss the behaviour and explain the potential consequences. Although these were unsuccessful, it was a reasonable step to take in the handling of the ASB.
Following the unsuccessful visits the landlord then tried to obtain evidence to gain an injunction against the perpetrator. Given the serious nature of the ASB and the extended history of ASB, it was reasonable of the landlord to escalate its response to the next stage and consider further action.
The landlord wrote to the resident, via email, on 7 March and 15 March 2023 to ask if he would provide a statement to support the injunction and explained the need for the evidence from him. The resident disputes receiving these emails and while the landlord has provided evidence to show it sent them, the Ombudsman cannot determine either way if the resident did receive them. However, it was right of the landlord to write to the resident, on 27 March 2023, prior to closing the case as a different form of communication.
Following contact from the resident disputing the above, the landlord appropriately kept the case open.
This was particularly important as the resident reported further ASB on the 19 March 2023. However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it responded to the resident’s report other than to say it had sent the report to its tenancy specialist team. This further report of ASB would have been an opportunity for the landlord to have revisited the action plan, and to have considered if any other action were necessary. Landlord’s need to ensure they have regular contact with residents to manage expectations and to understand the impact of the situation to help it consider if it could take further action.
A further CMARAC conference took place on 18 May 2023 following which the landlord decided to seek possession of the property. While the landlord could not disclose to the resident the information which led to that decision, it appropriately wrote to the resident on 23 May 2023 to advice of such and explain it would close the ASB case due the legal action.
The evidence suggests that the landlord received no further reports of ASB after 19 March 2023 and the landlord therefore took no further action in relation to the perpetrator. However, there is no evidence that the landlord reached out to the resident to ascertain if the ASB had in fact stopped or if he had just stopped reported the incidents as he believe the landlord was seeking possession. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored this with the resident prior to making any decision to not pursue possession. The landlord has provided no evidence to show how it came to the decision that it did, especially given the extended history of ASB in this case. Its failure to check in with the resident is a failing and showed a disregard to the resident’s situation.
The landlord wrote to the perpetrator on 5 September 2023 to explain that while it was pleased the behaviour had improved, it would not hesitate to pursue possession should further incidents occur. The Ombudsman understands that closing the case may not have been the outcome the resident wanted. However the landlord followed its ASB policy, and the evidence suggested it acted fairly, and its response was proportionate to the issues raised.
However, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it reached out to the resident to discuss the current situation with him and to understand if the situation had in fact improved or if he had stopped reporting as he believed legal action was being pursued. This would have been a further opportunity for the landlord to have reached out to the resident to discuss the situation before making a final decision to not pursue possession.
And, while this investigation cannot consider earlier incidents, we are aware that there was a long-standing history of ASB by the neighbour towards the resident. The landlord seemingly failed to consider the wider picture and if further action was necessary given the extensive history in this case.
Throughout this case, it was clear that the landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. While it followed its ASB policy in terms of the action it took with regards to the perpetrator, the resident had to spend a lot of time chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord did not communicate with the resident with regards to the action it intended to take. Nor did it offer any third party support for the resident, such as a referral to victim support, in line with its policy.
While the landlord’s handling of the ASB was in line its policy in that it completed an action plan, liaised with third party agencies and escalated its response as the incidents continued, its lack of effective communication with the resident was not of the standard expected by the Ombudsman and its failure to offer support to the resident beyond the action plan was disappointing. It failed to fully grasp the impact on the resident and consider if further action was necessary in this case. The event in January 2023 was a serious event which occurred when the resident was home with his 6 year old son. The landlord’s lack of communication, empathy and support to the resident has caused an adverse finding in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
A compensation order is made for £600 to reflect the failings in this case. This is made up of the following:
1. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £300 for time and trouble.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs required to the intercom.

When the resident raised the issue of the outstanding repair needed to the intercom in his complaint, the landlord responded and set out the history of the repair process. The Ombudsman is aware that where a S20 is needed, it is a lengthy process from identifying the repair through to the time when the process is complete, and the repair can go ahead. During that time, the Ombudsman would expect to see the landlord keep the resident updated a regular interval to inform them of the status of the planned major works.
In this case, the landlord wrote to the resident yearly, with the last letter prior to the complaint being 20 February 2024. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Furthermore, in its stage 2 response the landlord provided a further update and managed the resident’s expectations with regards to the progress of the works and set out the lead time on the outstanding door.
It also, appropriately, looked back at the charges paid for the previous year and recognised that the resident had paid a charge for the intercom in the 2021/22 financial year and refunded the share paid by the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Furthermore, to recognise the resident’s repeated contact to understand the progress of the intercom repairs and the inconvenience caused, the landlord apologised and offered the resident £200 compensation.
Therefore, this investigation considers that the landlord has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident raised a formal complaint on 30 December 2023 and while the landlord sent the formal complaint to the relevant team on 2 January 2024, it did not acknowledge the complaint until 19 January 2024. This is not in line with its policy which says it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
Furthermore, it provided its stage 1 response on 21 February 2024. This was 13 days outside of the required timescales as set out in its policy and as required by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, the landlord apologised for the delay and in reflecting the inconvenience caused, it offered £50 compensation to the resident.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 21 February 2024 and the landlord provided its response 23 days later, on 28 March 2024. While this was 3 days outside of the published timescales, the delay did not cause a detriment to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord accepted and apologised for the delayed response and offered compensation of £50 to reflect the delay.
While the landlord could have improved its complaint handling, it apologised for the delayed response and offered compensation to reflect the delay. As such the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repair of the intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, a senior member of staff should write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this case.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £600. This is be paid in addition to the £300 previously offered for its handling of the intercom repair and complaint handling.
Within six weeks from the date of this determination, the landlord must review this case. The review should identify any lessons learned from handling the ASB, communication with the resident, recording ASB reports, and managing cases with a history of intermittent ASB. The landlord should consider how to incorporate these lessons into its policies and procedures. Additionally, the review must determine if any further action is needed in this case and provide the reasoning behind its conclusions. A copy of the review must be provided to both the resident and this Service within six weeks.
The landlord must provide evidence of the compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations.

As the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress in both the landlord’s handling of the intercom repairs and its complaint handling based on the landlord’s offer of compensation, the landlord should pay the £300 compensation previously offered in this case if it has not already done so.