Clarion Housing Association Limited (202326450)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326450

Clarion Housing Association Limited

24 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 the resident’s:
   1. Concern that a recording device was installed in his bathroom without his notice.
   2. Associated formal complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property, a 2–bedroom house, since 2021 on an assured non-shorthold tenancy. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 4 June 2023 the resident located a camera within the extractor fan in his bathroom. He complained to the landlord about this on 9 June 2023. He said its contractors had accessed the property in January 2023 to fit a heat pump and he had reported the matter to the police.
4. After an investigation, the police advised the resident no action would be taken due to a lack of evidence.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 September 2023 it said:
   1. As the police had no evidence to suggest who had committed the offence, its operatives had not been questioned, and it could not take action against them.
   2. It had liaised with the police to obtain as much information about what had happened as possible and shared the details with its contractor.
   3. It had not received any reports of similar incidents from any other customers. However, it would retain the details in case something was reported in future.
   4. It offered support and to make adjustments to future visits if needed.
   5. While it was unable to uphold the complaint, it apologised that it had not been logged on the system correctly so there was a service failure as there was a delay responding. It offered £150 compensation.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 September 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 22 September 2023. On 28 September 2023 the resident advised he was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered as he felt the property was no longer safe or secure.
7. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 25 October 2023 it:
   1. Reiterated its stage 1 response and explained it had worked with the contractor for a long time.
   2. Explained that, although not all operatives were DBS checked, the contractor worked with schools, so was security vetted and had had no issues meeting the landlord’s requirements.
   3. Explained that, as the police had confirmed no further action was being taken, the police had advised it would be unreasonable to interview multiple workers without any proof.
   4. Said the police also advised that, in terms of the recording device itself, it did not look like the camera could be operated remotely. It reiterated its offer of support and apology for its deficient complaint handling and increased its offer of compensation to £200.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s concern that a recording device was installed in his bathroom

8. Having been advised by the resident that a camera had been found at the property, the landlord spoke with him and contacted the police. It asked for information about the investigation and the device that was found. In particular, it asked how the device may have been operated remotely. When it spoke with the resident on 19 June 2023 the landlord rightly attempted to manage his expectations by explaining that the police would lead on the investigation as it was a criminal matter, but it would support him and follow any directions they may have.
9. The resident had said there had been quite a lot of workers in the property in the past year and he did not know when the camera was put there. The landlord kept in touch with the resident while the police investigation was being carried out. The police explained that the camera had been hooked up and plugged into mains in the loft but it was unclear if it was working. There was no SD card in it and it was not known whether it was connected using wifi. The police said the lack of evidence meant it could take no further action.
10. The landlord has a code of conduct for its staff and contractors to adhere to. Therefore, if there was evidence of misconduct, it could consider whether any action was needed against the people involved. The landlord rightly acknowledged the resident was shaken by what happened and it was appropriate that it made the contractor aware of the situation. However, without evidence from the police of any wrong-doing, the landlord’s explanation for being unable to take action against any individuals was reasonable.
11. Despite the police saying no further action would be taken, the landlord continued to request full disclosure from the police. It explained it was concerned about the allegation and that it wanted to co–operate with the investigation. However, the police said it could add nothing further to the information it had already provided.
12. The resident and his family were understandably upset by the incident and it is unfortunate the police could not establish who fitted the camera. Nevertheless, the landlord continued to make internal enquiries about when operatives attended in an effort to establish what happened.
13. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the lack of evidence which resulted in no action being taken by the police. However, it took the resident’s report seriously and kept him updated on its communication with the police. It noted his concern that the camera may have been fitted by a contractor and made the contractor aware of the situation.
14. However, in the absence of evidence to show it was a contractor who fitted the camera, the landlord’s decision not to investigate in line with its code of conduct, or accuse individual staff, was reasonable. Therefore, there was no maladministration. While the landlord was unable to take any action against anyone, it did offer support in the future as well as mediation. This was an appropriate response as it shows it recognised the resident and his family had understandably found the situation very difficult to deal with.

Handling of the formal complaint and the level of compensation offered

15. The landlord’s complaints policy from the time of the complaint said a complaint would be responded to within 20 working days. If it was escalated to the next stage, a peer review, it would aim to resolve it within 40 working days.
16. It took the landlord 3 months to respond to the complaint, which represents a failure in its service. However, in its stage 1 response it acknowledged it had not recorded the complaint correctly, apologised for this, and offered £150 compensation. Therefore, the landlord accepted it had failed to adhere to its policy timescales and recognised that its oversight had negatively impacted the resident. It wanted to put thigs right and offering compensation to do so was appropriate.
17. The resident escalated the complaint to peer review as he did not feel the amount of compensation sufficiently recognised what had happened. This suggests he was attributing the compensation offered to his complaint about the camera. As detailed above, we do not find that any compensation payment was due for the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. Instead, the landlord’s offer was made solely in relation to the acknowledged delay in its complaint handling.
18. The landlord’s compensation policy says awards of £50 to £250 are usually made where there has been a service failure resulting in some impact to a resident. This includes circumstances where there has been a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. That is the case here.
19. The landlord’s initial compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy. However, it took the opportunity of the peer review to increase the offer to £200 in the hope this would resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction. This demonstrates the landlord being resolution focused and committed to putting things right.
20. The £200 compensation offered is in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The delay addressing the complaint caused some frustration to the resident, but nothing long term or permanent. While the landlord failed to respond to the complaint formally in line with its policy timescales, it was still investigating the resident’s concerns and kept him updated. Overall, we find that the landlord’s offer provided reasonable redress for the identified failings and the moderate impact of these on the resident.
21. The landlord’s complaints process at the time was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it now has a statutory obligation to ensure such compliance and this is monitored by a dedicated team within the Ombudsman. As a result, no recommendation is made in that regard, but the landlord should take steps to ensure it is aware of, and complying with, its obligations in relation to the Code.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that a recording device was installed in his bathroom without his notice.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the formal complaint.

Recommendation

24. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £200 compensation offered (if it has not already). This recognised genuine elements of service failure in its complaint handling and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.