Clarion Housing Association Limited (202337611)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337611

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 December 2024

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of harassment and noise by a neighbour.
2. Concerns about staff and information they had provided to a third party.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom property owned by the landlord. The landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord in January 2024, stating that he had been experiencing noise from his neighbour’s property for the past 4 years. He said that this was having an impact on his health. He believed the noise to be from fans in the kitchen and bathroom. He stated that the previous occupant had also complained of noise from the same neighbour. His neighbour had made false reports to the police and ambulance service resulting in unwanted visits to his home.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 and 5 January 2024. He said that he had sent “over 3000 complaints” regarding noise and nonstop harassment since 2019. He had been leaving his home to sleep elsewhere or in his living room as he could not use his bedroom. He said the police and landlord had “suppressed witness statements” from other residents and neighbours. He raised concerns about members of staff involved in his case, requesting that they no longer be involved, and said that they had provided false information to a councillor who was looking into his case.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 12 February 2024. It said it had allocated the resident’s case to a new staff member following his concerns. It had shared information with a councillor, about a no maladministration finding made by this Service and said that this was not a breach of information as it was in the public domain. It set out the actions it had taken in investigating the resident’s reports, stated that it had maintained regular contact, and followed its policies and procedures. It apologised for its late complaint response and offered £50 compensation.
The resident escalated his complaint the same day. He said that he had not previously raised a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman and asked it to explain where it got the information from. He said that the staff member, who he had asked to not be involved, had liaised and colluded with a councillor. He disputed the landlord’s explanation about carrying out tests in his neighbours property and its findings.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 12 April 2024. It explained that the member of staff was no longer involved in the case but had acted when other staff were absent, to prevent delays. It found that there had been no determination made by this Service and apologised for giving incorrect information to the councillor. It explained its investigation into the noise reports and actions it had taken. It apologised for not responding to correspondence and set out an action plan going forward. It offered £800 compensation for its identified failings. This comprised:
1. £250 for incorrect information in its stage 1 response.
2. £250 for providing incorrect information to the councillor.
3. £150 for failing to update the resident on the outcome of a noise test.
4. £100 for failing to respond to noise reports from 1 February 2024.
5. £50 for its late stage 2 response.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. In his correspondence with this Service, he told us that the neighbour had moved out of the property on 9 October 2024. He said that the noise had stopped but the property was still vacant. He did not feel that the compensation offered reflected the 4 years of harassment he had suffered and impact this had on his mental health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence he advised that the situation had caused him to be unwell, with both his physical and mental health. While we empathise that the situation would likely have been distressing, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. This Service can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, 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. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, he can consider this via the courts.
In the resident’s correspondence he said that he had moved to his current home, having been transferred from his previous property due to a hate crime. He believed that the landlord knew there were issues with his neighbour, and that he would suffer similar issues. He said he had been reporting his concerns about his neighbour and the noise since 2019.
Given the time that elapsed since the earlier reports, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents complain within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising. This should then be progressed to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are not satisfied with how the landlord responds to a complaint. This has, therefore, limited the extent to which this Service can investigate.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint to ascertain whether it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from December 2023 leading up to its final response on 12 April 2024. Any events prior to December 2023 and following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of harassment and noise by a neighbour

The landlord has adopted the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of antisocial behaviour (ASB) which is conduct which:
1. Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
2. Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
3. Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that ASB can take many forms, ranging from noise nuisance, criminal damage, verbal abuse and other types of criminality. It will not consider reports which are not ASB or considered to be lifestyle differences. This includes household noise due to every-day living and proportionate TV, music, or radio noise, and noise from electrical items such as washing machines or vacuum cleaners. It also includes that:
1. It will investigate cases of noise within 5 working days when the threshold is met. It refers to the threshold as 3 separate incidents reported in the last 7 days, or 5 separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person. No threshold will apply where a resident is particularly vulnerable and that it has a duty of care.
2. It will work in partnership with other agencies, adopt a victim centred approach, and consider a range of interventions. This includes tenancy support, warning letters to deter or prevent ASB, and where appropriate legal action by way of injunctions and/or possession proceedings.
In the resident’s complaint he stated that he had been experiencing noise for the past 4 years. Cases where there is a history of ASB over an extended period, such as this, are often the most challenging for a landlord to manage. In practice, the options available to a landlord to resolve a case do not extend to the resident’s preferred outcome and it therefore becomes difficult to manage a resident’s expectations. In such instances, closely following the ASB procedure ensures that the landlord can progress the case to a resolution, even if that resolution is not the outcome requested by the resident.
The evidence provided to this Service demonstrates that the resident made in excess of 14 reports of noise from his neighbour in December 2023. These related to being unable to sleep as the neighbour was running fans all night. He believed that the neighbour was doing this intentionally to get a reaction from him. The neighbour had called the police on 59 occasions, claiming to be concerned about his welfare, and also sent ambulances to his home on more than 11 occasions.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it contacted the neighbour in December 2023 to discuss the resident’s concerns. The neighbour disputed making any noise. Its wardens visited the neighbour on 13 December 2023 and confirmed that the extractor fans did not make excessive noise. It said that the kitchen fan had been taped up and the fan in the bathroom had been unplugged so was not in use.
The resident wrote to the landlord on multiple occasions in January 2024 stating that the noise sounded like a sander against the wall. He also referred to the cooker fan and asked that the landlord test all fans in the property. He believed that the fans were fitted in existing air vents and the cavity wall of the adjoining wall of the properties. He had agreed to the installation of noise monitoring equipment offered by the local authority. He asked for the fans to be changed for fans with timers.
The resident continued to make reports throughout January 2024 providing dates, times, and describing the impact this was having on his health. He made further reports in February 2024 and stated that his neighbour had been following and videoing him whilst he was walking his dog. He believed this was to provoke a reaction from him following further false reports made to the police.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it was aware of the ongoing dispute between the resident and his neighbour. It had investigated the complaint “at great length” and previously offered alternative accommodation, which was refused at the time. It had inspected the neighbour’s home on several occasions and explained that the fans were not located on the adjoining wall of the property. It said that 1 fan was not being used as it had been taped up. It had offered its noise app and noise monitoring equipment to help record the noise but the resident had declined its offer. The local authority had offered to install noise monitoring equipment, but it was unsure whether he had taken up the offer. It could see that its tenancy specialist team had been in regular contact throughout the process and it had followed its policies and procedures.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in that it had visited the neighbour to inspect the fans and discussed the issues with him. Its offer of its noise app and noise monitoring equipment was also appropriate. However, there was no evidence provided to suggest that it had carried out a risk assessment with the resident, given the reports of harassment and the impact he had said the situation was having on his mental health. There was also no evidence to demonstrate that it had agreed an action plan at the time. Its response also failed to acknowledge his report about the neighbour making false calls to the police and ambulance service. Its response did not demonstrate that it had fully investigated his concerns or the detriment this was having on him.
In the resident’s escalation request he referred to the noise testing in his neighbour’s property, stating that the wardens had also completed tests in 2022. He said that the tenancy team had changed the report, claiming that noise was from a fridge rather than a cooker. He had not been informed of the test in December 2023 and it claimed that the fans were not turned on or taped up. He asked how it could test a fan that was taped up. He had asked the time of the test and said it had refused to answer his question. He said that the neighbour had made a further false call to the police the same day. He disputed that the fans were fitted on the rear wall and complained that the wardens has visited his home, called him, and banged on his windows.
The resident wrote to the landlord further on 26 February 2024 stating that the party wall of the front room was covered with 2 layers of soundproof plasterboard fitted by the previous occupant. The landlord had claimed that previous reports from the former occupant were not noise related. This went against the witness statements it had from other residents who had witnessed the noise. He asked again for the fans to be changed to timer fans. He continued to report the same noise concerns throughout March 2024, in excess of 9 reports.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it held an internal meeting on 5 April 2024 to discuss the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged the large volume of correspondence from the resident and that he had been reporting daily noise in real time. It referred to being unable to substantiate the noise reports without evidence and the need for its surveyor to attend to assess the source of the noise. It was considering what actions it needed to take in order to gain access to the neighbour’s home, using an independent noise testing company, and requesting a police disclosure.
The landlord’s internal meeting was appropriate to assess the situation and consider what actions it could take to resolve the matter. However, it could have considered these actions at an earlier stage, given the number of reports made by the resident from December 2023 and the impact he said the noise was having on him.
Some incidents of noise would not be classed as ASB and landlords should consider how to manage reports of noise and the likely impact on residents. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Noise Complaints published in October 2022, explains that where noise reports do not meet the statutory threshold, then landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management policy, distinct from its ASB policy, with clear options for maintaining good neighbour relationships. This will ensure that low level issues of neighbour friction are dealt with at the appropriate levels and not inappropriately handled as potential ASB. It also includes that landlords should:
1. Engage residents in the development of a good neighbourhood management policy, including residents who have recently raised a formal complaint with the landlord, to assure themselves that it reflects the expectations of residents and will be effective.
2. Have a triage methodology for identifying whether a noise report should be handled under the ASB policy or a good neighbourhood management policy. This should include a recognition that the time the noise occurred has a bearing on whether the noise is anti-social in nature.
3. Provide training on this triage methodology, including regular refresher training and whenever there is staff change.
It is not known whether the landlord has a good neighbourhood management policy, and this Service has, therefore, made a recommendation in relation to this.
In its stage 2 response the landlord set out the actions it had taken to try to resolve the matter. This included visiting the neighbour both with and without notice, carrying out visits out of hours with its wardens, inspecting the fans which it concluded were operating normally, offering its noise app and noise monitoring equipment which was declined by the resident. In its explanation to this Service, it said it had also considered mediation but due to the relationship breakdown between the parties, this was not an option. This demonstrates that it had offered a number of resolutions to try to identify the noise and resolve the matter.
As part of the resolution, the resident had requested timer fans to be installed as he believed the fans on the wall were causing the noise disturbance. The landlord repeated the actions it had taken in testing the fans and said that it had been unable to establish that the noise was from the fans. It had attempted to test the fans again on 13 December 2023, however, it had not gained access to the neighbour’s home. It said that the resident was not notified of this because the noise test was not scheduled to take place at his home. It would only have shared the findings with him. It had not shared the outcome of the visit on 13 December 2023 or kept him informed. It apologised for its oversight and lack of communication. It also apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s correspondence since 3 January 2024 in line with its procedures.
It should be noted that the landlord’s response, regarding the testing on 13 December 2023, is contrary to its earlier records. The records stated that it had tested the fans on 13 December 2023, whereas its stage 2 response states it failed to gain access.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also noted that the wardens had visited the resident’s home in response to a call made on 28 February 2024 and identified a low pitch continual humming sound. Although it was low, it was audible and consistent. The wardens had immediately attended his neighbour’s home to investigate but were unable to gain access. It said it would investigate the noise detected in his home on 28 February 2024 to try to find a resolution and would consider placing a timer on the extractor fan. However, it needed to consider and understand the actual issue as appliances had been changed in his neighbour’s home previously.
The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated that it was attempting to identify the source of the noise. It was also reasonable to continue its investigation and consider timer fans.
The landlord apologised for any unwanted contact from its wardens. It had reminded them to be mindful of the times they contacted residents as they worked out of hours. It reassured the resident that its aim had been to try to help identify the noise so appropriate action could be taken. The wardens would no longer arrange any home visits.
The landlord said that it was exploring options to gain access to his neighbour’s home following a number of failed attempts. It assured him that all necessary updates and outcomes would be communicated going forward as part of its action plan.
The landlord explained that it was unable to share information about the previous occupant’s complaints for confidentiality reasons. However, its investigation of the matter had identified previous complaints, although not to the volume he had quoted in his correspondence. Its records indicate that each complaint received was addressed and managed in accordance with its policy and procedures.
The landlord said that it had carried out a review of the actions taken since 2019 and determined that his case had been managed in accordance with its policies. It had requested a police disclosure to get further information about his claim that the neighbour had continued to make false calls to the police and ambulance service. It also stated that he could take his own action by making contact with the police. This action was appropriate and demonstrated it had listened to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said it was appointing a housing resident liaison officer as a single point of contact to enable a more transparent way of working. It said it was imperative that it worked with the resident collaboratively to identify the noise. It was arranging for a surveyor to attend and inspect both properties to establish the cause of the noise and identify appropriate action. It said that without this investigation and sound monitoring equipment, it would be unable to substantiate the noise issues. It was also prepared to explore whether it could appoint an independent noise testing company to assess noise transference between the properties. It advised him that he could involve the local authority noise team as an independent team. These actions demonstrate that the landlord was continuing to investigate to try to resolve the matter.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not fully investigate and failed to accurately conclude his complaint at stage 1 and in line with its policies. It offered £150 for failing to update the resident of the noise test on 13 December 2023 and £100 for failing to pick up noise reports since 1 February 2024.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was comprehensive and set out the actions it had taken to try to resolve the matter. It also set out actions it was taking to continue its investigation of the resident’s reports. The evidence demonstrated that it did request a police disclosure but this did not provide any evidence. It was appropriate to advise that it was unable to substantiate the noise without noise monitoring and inspections, which it required the resident’s support to achieve. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB. Without sufficient evidence, it would have been challenging for the landlord to pursue further action against the neighbour.
The landlord appropriately apologised for its identified failings. Its compensation offer was reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600.
There were other shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise as outlined in this report. It failed to demonstrate that it had undertaken a risk assessment to assess the impact the situation was having on him or whether he required any support from other agencies, such as his GP. Nonetheless, its response, apology, and offer of compensation was appropriate and we therefore find that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, has satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of harassment and noise from a neighbour.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response the resident continued to report the same noise concerns. While the neighbour has now left the property and it remains vacant, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to carry out noise testing between the properties to prevent a similar issue arising when the property is let.
The resident has stated the compensation does not truly recognise his experience of the noise and police and ambulance attendance. The Ombudsman would not order a landlord to pay compensation to recognise the impact of another residents alleged behaviour. Any award would be to recognise the impact of a landlord’s failures. In this case, as some of the landlord’s actions were appropriate and we have found only some minor failings, the level of compensation is fair to recognise the likely distress caused to the resident.

Concerns about staff and information they had provided to a third party

In the resident’s complaint he raised concerns about a number of individual staff members and asked that they not be involved in his case. He also raised concerns that the staff member had shared false information with a councillor and accused them of collusion.
It is not disputed that the landlord included incorrect information in its stage 1 response, or that it shared this information with a councillor. In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that the information was incorrect and apologised for the “misinformation” being provided to the councillor. It offered compensation of £500 for its identified failings.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s records of December 2023 show that it reassigned the ASB case to a new member of staff following the resident’s request. It was reasonable for it to consider the resident’s request and take this action, given that it had no obligation to do so.
On 2 January 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he had made it clear he did not want certain people involved in his case. He had also made this clear to the councillor, to find out that the named individuals were still involved.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said that during a review of the case it had not identified that the previous members of staff had not managed his case appropriately. However, a decision was made to reallocate his case to a new member of staff following his concerns. The councillor was not aware of this and made further enquiries to the original staff member. As the newly appointed person was on leave at the time, the original staff member responded. It understood that this caused concern and apologised.
The resident had also mentioned that it had shared information with the councillor in relation to the Housing Ombudsman’s determination of no maladministration. It explained that the councillor had made enquiries about his case, following contact from him. It was reasonable for it to provide information to an elected member following enquiries.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in its explanation regarding its staff members. Where it had a limited staff resource at the time, it was reasonable for staff to respond to councillor enquiries. We appreciate that this would likely have been distressing for the resident given its agreement that they would no longer be involved. However, its explanation regarding a determination by this Service, demonstrates that it had not investigated or appropriately verified the information before sharing it with the councillor or including it in its stage 1 response.
In the resident’s escalation request he repeated that the named individuals should not be involved in his case. He had also made this clear to the councillor in December 2023 who ignored his request. The councillor was due to visit his home on 3 January 2024 but cancelled the appointment. He queried whether his neighbour had been informed of the appointment as the noise appeared to stop before the scheduled visit. He had asked questions which both the member of staff and councillor had refused to answer. He accused the member of staff and councillor of collusion.
In its stage 2 response the landlord repeated that it had agreed that the individual staff member would have no further involvement in his case. It explained further that the individual was the only available member of staff when his appointed contact was on leave. It appreciated that it appeared that it had not adhered to the agreement. However, it was imperative that it respond to his email as quickly as possible and in line with its process.
The landlord stated that its staff member should have notified the councillor that they no longer had involvement in the case. However, the staff member had not become involved other than to respond to the enquiry at the time. It had not notified the neighbour of the visit as it was not responsible for organising or attending the visit.
The landlord acknowledged that it had made an error in its stage 1 response, stating that the Housing Ombudsman had not made a determination. It had been unable to substantiate that there had been a no maladministration finding issued in relation to any previous complaints made by the resident, and it had never received a determination. It apologised for providing incorrect information to the councillor and for its misquote in its stage 1 response. It offered £250 compensation for its error in its stage 1 response and a further £250 for providing incorrect information to the councillor.
The landlord’s response was comprehensive and explained the outcome of its investigation. This demonstrates that it listened to the resident’s concerns and undertook a thorough investigation providing its findings. It acknowledged its error, apologised, and demonstrated learning from the complaint in that it should have verified the information. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s concerns about staff and information they had provided to a third party.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s interim complaints policy, dated June 2022, stated it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days.
The landlord has amended its complaints policy, as shown on its website, which is now compliant with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code of 10 and 20 working days respectively for stage 1 and 2 responses.
The landlord acknowledged in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it had not responded within its complaint handling timescales. It apologised for its late responses and offered a total of £100 compensation.
The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation was reasonable given that its responses were 7 and 3 working days late respectively. Its compensation offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for service failure in the range of £50 to £100. We therefore find that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

Paragraph 53.b of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that: b. the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of ‘reasonable redress’.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was ‘reasonable redress’ offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of harassment and noise by a neighbour.
2. Concerns about staff and information they had provided to a third party.
3. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord should pay to the resident £850, offered in its stage 1 and 2 responses, if not already paid.
The landlord should consider undertaking sound testing while the neighbouring property is vacant to determine whether any works could be undertaken to prevent similar noise issues in the future.
The landlord should update its records in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities and his request for no unannounced visits.
The landlord should review this Service’s Spotlight report on Noise from October 2022 and how this may be reflected in its policies.