Clarion Housing Association Limited (202323976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323976

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 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.

Complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 21 November 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The resident’s son has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, global development delay, severe learning disabilities, speech development delays and anxiety.
On 30 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that her neighbour had used a broom to tamper with her CCTV camera, causing damage. The landlord liaised with the police who were unable to act at that time.
On 3 April 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour had put a letter through her door calling her a paedophile for using CCTV. The resident also reported the incident to the police. She reported a further incident on 21 April when her neighbour called her a bully.
Things were quieter during May 2023 and the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) case was closed. However, on 5 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and police to report that her neighbour was “stalking and harassing” her. During June, August and September 2023 the resident contacted her landlord to report incidents of verbal abuse by her neighbour.
On or around 9 September 2023 there was an incident where the neighbour made threats of harm against the resident. The resident said she did not feel safe and asked to be moved. The landlord advised her that she did not meet the criteria for a management move.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had raised a formal stage 1 complaint in response to her recent emails.
On 20 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. The resident reported criminal damage to the police during March 2023. However no further action was taken as the perpetrator could not be identified.
3. It was agreed it would carry out joint visits with the police to the resident and her neighbour to offer mediation. However, it did not get a response from the police so this did not go ahead.
4. In May 2023 it offered mediation which the resident declined and the case was closed.
5. During June 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour was watching her and “causing issues.” The police were involved and another joint visit was suggested.
6. Following the visit it confirmed there was some evidence of her neighbour using “inappropriate language.” It advised the resident to ignore it and not engage.
7. The police carried out a letter drop during July 2023. Later in July 2023 the resident confirmed there had been no further incidents and the case was closed.
8. During September 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour had moved her CCTV and damaged her solar lights. This was also reported to the police who were investigating.
9. The resident asked to be moved to more “stable” accommodation. There was no evidence or reports of ASB that would cause “significant risk of harm” therefore it could not consider a management move at that time. It signposted her to make a homeless application to the local authority.
10. It would continue to liaise with the police.
11. It did not investigate “some” of the reported incidents and additional support was not offered “at times.” Therefore there was a failure in service. It offered £50 compensation.
On 28 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to set out her dissatisfaction with its response. She believed there was sufficient evidence to support her reports about her neighbour and she did not feel safe in her home.
On 16 October 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that she was no longer staying at the property out of fear.
On 23 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, the main points being:
1. It set out the timeline and summary of the ASB case.
2. It delayed contacting the resident when she first reported ASB. The resident responded to its call to complete the initial interview and action plan on 6 April 2023. However, it did not respond until 21 April 2023 which was “unacceptable.”
3. It had not considered her support needs. She advised she had depression and the ASB was compounding the problem. It should have signposted her to support services. It apologised it did not do so and confirmed it had fed back to the officer managing the case.
4. It had liaised with other agencies and attempted to obtain evidence from other sources to corroborate allegations.
5. It had limited stock in her area of choice and those it had were located close to where she lived. Therefore a move in the area would not move her far enough away to prevent any further recurring issues with her neighbour. Under a management move she would only be considered on a like for like basis. She was in a 3 bedroom property therefore she could not move to one with 4 bedrooms. It did not have any such properties in the in any event.
6. It had asked ‘ASB action’ to carry out an independent case review. Once it received the report back it would contact her to discuss next steps.
7. It offered £200 compensation in addition to £50 awarded at stage 1.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 2 November 2023 the resident emailed us to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction. She was unhappy that the landlord would not move her. The complaint became one we could investigate on 3 September 2024.
The resident returned to the property on or around 26 November 2023. During the period that she was away from the property the resident reported that her neighbour had tampered with her CCTV and continued to make threats against her.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The government’s guidance ‘putting victims first: more effective responses to antisocial behaviour’ says agencies should put the victim at the heart of their response, driven by an assessment of harm to the victim.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure said it would:
1. Assess the vulnerability of complainants and tailor its response accordingly.
2. Work in partnership with other agencies to ensure that the most appropriate action was taken to resolve ASB and challenge them to use their powers, where appropriate.
3. Interview the complainant and agree an action plan in all cases that were passed for investigation.
4. Ensure that all incidents that were crimes were reported to the police and speak to them about what they were doing or had done.
5. Collect other evidence of the incident(s) that were being reported.
6. Decide whether to act, close the case or continue investigating.
7. Carry out security measures such as arson proof letter boxes subject to the cost and level of threat.
Its Management Transfer Policy states that:
1. It would rely on a management transfer where a resident is experiencing ASB or harassment that puts them at “serious risk of harm.”
2. Management transfers should only be considered if the police or other specialist professional agency confirm in writing that there is a serious risk of harm or threat to the resident or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property. There must be a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available quickly.
Its Compensation Policy says it will consider paying discretionary compensation to recognise a particular adverse effect and impact on a resident.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Following the resident’s reports of ASB to the landlord on 30 March and 3 April 2023 the landlord tried to call the resident on 6 April 2023. It was unable to speak to the resident so it wrote to her to acknowledge the reports and set out an action plan in line with its ASB Procedure.
However, there is no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment so that it could assess her vulnerability and tailor its response accordingly in line with its ASB Procedure. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to investigate the resident’s complaint for example, speaking with potential witnesses. This would have been appropriate and in line with its ASB Procedure.
On 21 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to report that her neighbour had caused further ASB, including damaging her CCTV and verbally abusing her. The criminal damage had been reported to the police who were unable to take further action. The landlord appropriately contacted the police to clarify their position. However, there is no evidence that it conducted its own investigation into the reports of incidents such as verbal abuse which was inappropriate.
A file note dated 18 September 2023 noted that it should be prepared to carry out its own investigation and not rely solely on the police. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 20 September 2023 appropriately acknowledged that it had not investigated “some” of the reported incidents.
During an email exchange between the landlord and the police on 25 April 2023 it was agreed that they would carry out joint visits to both parties. However, its stage 1 complaint response of 20 September 2023 said this did not go ahead because the police did not get back to it. Its stage 2 complaint response of 23 October 2023 confirmed that on 9 May 2023 it chased the police for a response.
However during a discussion with the resident, also on 9 May 2023, it was agreed that the landlord would close the case because the situation had “calmed down.” It wrote to the resident accordingly and advised that mediation was still available should she change her mind. Its response was appropriate in the circumstances.
On 5 June 2023 the resident notified the landlord that she had reported her neighbour to the police for ongoing ASB. She said she had depression and that she “felt like a prisoner in her own home.” She said the police were going to visit her.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord contacted the resident. On the same day it appropriately acknowledged the report and confirmed the action plan in writing. It said it would contact the police once the resident provided the details of the officer she was liaising with which was in line with its ASB Procedure.
However, there is no evidence that it carried out a risk assessment in relation to the resident’s vulnerability. This would have ensured it tailored its response in line with its ASB Procedure. The impact of its failure to do so was compounded by the resident’s mental health. Its stage 1 complaint response of 20 September 2023 put things right to some extent by acknowledging its mistake. It confirmed it should have offered additional support and appropriately set out the action it had taken to prevent a recurrence.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2023 to report incidents of verbal abuse by her neighbour. She said she had reported the matter to the police and provided it with a crime reference number. On 26 June 2023 the landlord appropriately emailed the police to agree to carry out joint visits which were scheduled for 28 June 2023.
During the visits on 28 June 2023 both the resident and neighbour made allegations about one another. Appropriate words of advice were given by the landlord and police. It was also agreed that the police would contact neighbours to see if they had witnessed any of the incidents. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 October 2023 confirmed that this took place on 3 July 2023.
On 17 July 2023 the police advised the landlord that neighbours had not provided any independent evidence to corroborate the reports of ASB. When the landlord contacted the resident that day she confirmed there had been no further incidents. Therefore, the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident, also on 17 July 2023, to confirm that the case had been closed.
On 3 September 2023 the resident called the landlord to report that she had been verbally abused by her neighbour and that she had also reported the incident to the police. The landlord attempted to call the resident but was unable to get through. On 5 September the landlord appropriately wrote to the resident to set out an action plan which included liaising with the police.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2023 to report that her neighbour was moving her CCTV and had damaged her solar lights. The incident was also reported to the police.
On 9 September 2023 the police advised the landlord that an incident had taken place and they had arrested the resident’s partner for threatening her neighbour with an axe. The resident later reported he had done so because he was protecting her against threats of harm made by her neighbour. An entry on the ASB case notes recorded that the police had advised the landlord to make a data protection information request which it said it had done.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 11 September 2023 during which they appropriately agreed an action plan. The file note recorded that the resident felt safe in the property at that time. However, there is no evidence it carried out a comprehensive risk assessment. This would have been appropriate given the circumstances including the resident’s son’s disabilities and its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
In her email to the landlord on 12 September 2023 the resident asked to be moved because her children were “too scared” to stay at the property. There is no evidence that the landlord risk assessed the situation or contacted the resident to discuss her concerns. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it considered whether additional security measures may have helped the household feel more secure. This would have been appropriate and in line with its ASB Procedure.
This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed the landlord again on 15 and 18 September 2023 to chase. In her emails she set out the fear experienced by the resident and her family and the impact the ongoing situation was having on them.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 20 September 2023 confirmed that the resident did not qualify for a management move. Its reasons were in line with its management transfer policy. However, there is no evidence that it proactively contacted the police to discuss risk of harm. Given the criteria set out in its management transfer policy this would have been appropriate in terms of immediate risk and the management move. It signposted the resident to the local authority for housing advice.
An internal email dated 22 September 2023 noted that it had made an information request to the police which may help to clarify its position with regards to the management move and risk of harm. In a telephone call with the resident on 25 September 2023 the landlord updated her accordingly. It said once it had a response from the police it would talk to them about risk. While these were positive steps its response lacked urgency and it failed to demonstrate that it was taking a risk based approach.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 28 September 2023 she set out details of her ongoing concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour. She felt like she was being “stalked” because they stood at their front door to watch her movements. She said the neighbour had harassed and verbally abused her in front of her children. There is no evidence that the landlord tried to investigate these complaints by gathering further information and/or identifying if there was any corroborating evidence. This would have been appropriate and in line with its ASB procedure.
During a phone call with the landlord on 4 October 2023 the resident said she required a 4 bedroom house. She said she did not want to pursue a move with the landlord. When asked if she wanted to go ahead with a management move should the police approve one she said she did not. The resident confirmed she was in contact with the local authority regarding her housing application.
During a telephone call with the resident on 16 October 2023 the resident confirmed she would not return to the property and did not want a management move. It was agreed that the landlord would contact her social worker. During a phone call with the resident’s social worker on 19 October they confirmed she did not want to be rehoused by the landlord. The social worker agreed to support the resident with her housing application to the local authority.
It was reasonable that the landlord did not give any further consideration to the resident’s request for a management move after this date.
A file note dated 19 October 2023 recorded that the case had been sent to ASB action for “full review.” The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 October 2023 made a commitment to request an independent review of the case and report back to the resident. However, in its email to us dated 9 April 2025 the landlord confirmed that a full review was not completed by ASB Action but that they were consulted at “various stages” for guidance.
That it did not carry out the action identified at stage 2 was a failure. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it consulted ASB Action at any other stage of the ASB case management process.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £250 it offered if this has not already been paid.
The landlord’s ASB Procedure dated February 2025 clearly sets out its response to risk including the use of a risk assessment matrix to assess the level of harm and the impact of ASB. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make an order on this matter.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £350 compensation for the distress caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord may deduct the £250 it offered if this has not already been paid.
Evidence of compliance with the orders above should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.