Clarion Housing Association Limited (202344118)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344118

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom ground floor flat owned by the landlord.
The resident has stated that she is clinically vulnerable and has chronic fatigue, Fibromyalgia and anxiety and depression. The landlord’s records showed the resident has anxiety and depression.
The landlord’s records noted that on 3 February 2022 the resident reported ASB including damage to an entry door, noise nuisance and an allegation that her neighbour – the alleged perpetrator was not living in their property. On 16 March 2022 the resident informed the landlord she wanted to move to another empty flat due to the ASB. On 24 March 2022 the landlord noted it spoke to the neighbour and reminded the neighbour of the responsibility for the behaviour of visitors under the terms of the tenancy conditions. On 1 April 2022 the landlord issued a letter to the neighbour. The letter informed the neighbour that any further incidents of antisocial behaviour may result in it taking action against her for breach of the tenancy agreement.
On 22 May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a violent assault took place in the communal area of the building that day. It involved her neighbour and her partner. Another neighbour and the resident intervened to try to stop the neighbour’s partner from assaulting the neighbour further and encouraging him to leave. The police attended. The resident said the incident had caused her great distress and huge anxiety, and she was now living in fear of retribution due to the partner being a drug and alcohol user who was unpredictable and prone to violence. The evidence provided noted the landlord was informed of the same incident by another resident of the block.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm her complaint of anti-social behaviour was being investigated under the landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and procedures. It enclosed an incident diary for the resident to record any details of any further incidents that occur to help support its investigation and any future case against the alleged perpetrator(s). A further letter was sent on 31 May 2022 which confirmed a case for ASB have been opened and provided an action plan with all actions scheduled to be completed by 22 June 2022.
On 16 September 2023, the resident reported further ASB involving the neighbours partner kicking the main communal door. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord the same day stating there was a lack of action taken by the landlord against the neighbour who was abusing her tenancy. The resident said:
1. The ASB that the landlord was constantly allowing the neighbour and visitors to get away with was affecting her mental health.
2. Other neighbours in the block knew it wouldn’t be long before another violent incident involving the neighbour and/or her associates occurred. The resident said she was woken from her sleep, hearing loud voices, swearing and the neighbour’s partner’s voice at the front door. She looked out of the window to see a violent altercation between two men and the ex-partner. The resident said she called the police and was shaking and could not sleep.
3. She needed and deserved to have the quiet enjoyment in her own home, as specified in her tenancy agreement. That was not possible for any residents in the block when the neighbour allowed her violent, criminal associates to live there. The neighbour was nowhere to be seen.
4. She wanted to be moved to a new home as a matter of urgency.
5. She had been diagnosed with PTSD due to experiencing violence throughout her childhood and into her early 20’s. She was a nervous wreck because of the consistent violent incidents whenever the resident’s male associates were living there. She could not relax in her own home and was highly anxious as to what was going to happen next.
6. The landlord’s ongoing inaction was leaving many of the resident’s highly vulnerable and mentally distressed and the landlord needed to take the tenancy away from someone who rarely lived there.
The landlord wrote to the resident the next day informing her the reports of ASB had been opened as a new investigation and provided diary sheets for the resident to complete. There was however no acknowledgment of the resident stating she wished to make a formal complaint
On 21 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and stated that she and other tenants were deeply concerned about the risk of more violent incidents occurring. The resident requested the landlord’s next steps or plan of action regarding the ongoing ASB issue stating as far as she was aware another neighbour in the block was the only tenant that had been given any information by the landlord and the perpetrator was back staying there again. The resident also informed the landlord that the neighbour when cleaning up her flat had dumped a large rug outside on the communal gardens and had left, to go stay elsewhere. The resident said she was a nervous wreck, wondering if every noise was going to turn into another massive drama. The resident also asked if there were any legal routes to ensure no further disturbance of the peace and mental distress. The resident reiterated she needed to be transferred to a safer property as she did not feel safe to live there anymore, and it was seriously affecting her mental and physical health.
On 27 September 2023 the resident requested an update from the landlord. On 9 October 2023 the resident reported to the landlord the neighbour had been away for a couple of weeks and as soon as she had come back with her partner the communal area smelled of drugs. The landlord’s records showed that on 19 October 2023 it called the resident and went through the incident. It then sent a letter confirming the reported ASB was being investigated and an agreed action plan. The plan included the landlord contacting the police and neighbours by 2 November 2023.
On 23 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reported further incidences of antisocial behaviour or breaches of tenancy by the neighbour. This included dumping large items in communal garden area, a strong marijuana smell in the communal hall on many occasions, and the neighbour not living in her flat and staying elsewhere most nights, every week leaving the ex-partner in the property. The resident stated most tenants had recently raised ASB complaints about the neighbour and were still waiting for an update from the meeting the landlord was supposed to have with the neighbour. The resident wanted to know the next steps or future plans of dealing with the situation. The landlord asked the resident to supply a crime reference number.
On 27 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she had had no formal response in writing to the stage one complaint and it was outside the response deadline. The resident asked if the landlord had liaised with the police or had met with the neighbour. If it had not done so, she wanted to know why not and what was the outcome/next steps regarding that meeting.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 12 December 2023. In the response the landlord stated it had identified a few areas where it had failed to follow its policy to resolve matters within the timescales. It apologised for the delays that caused, it also apologised for the delay in providing the response to the complaint stating that was due to high customer contact at that time. The landlord stated:
1. It did liaise with the police and its Tenancy Specialist team would be liaising with the police again about the further reported incident. It was limited on the information it could disclose however confirmed its investigations into the matter was ongoing. On 18 June 2022 it was affected by a cyber-security incident which meant it had no access to its main systems or phone systems and therefore during that time, was unable to update her on the ASB. Its tenancy specialist contacted her in November 2022 and the resident said there had been no further instances of ASB, and in line with its processes the case was closed. It was unable to identify any service failures with the handling of that ASB case
2. It had tried to visit the neighbour and arranged a meeting with them, however had so far been unsuccessful. It was continuing to try and set up a meeting to discuss the ASB. Should a meeting go ahead, it would be very limited in what information it could disclose to the resident, due to the general data protection regulations (GDPR).
3. Management moves were only offered to customers in exceptional circumstances, such as a risk to life, where the Police had recommended the move. As that was not the case, it was unable to offer the resident a management move. It provided the resident with alternative options including joining the housing register with the Council or a mutual exchange.
4. It was committed to supporting its residents to enable them to maintain their tenancies, which meant that any eviction would be a last resort. If legal actions were taken, it would consider lesser measures such as injunctions first and confirmed there were no plans to evict the neighbour.
5. Provided the resident with website and phone numbers of the support it offered for vulnerable residents.
6. Offered compensation of £200 for the delay in updating the resident about the ASB and the poor communications consisting of £50 for the delay in the complaint response and £150 for its poor communications and delay in responding to logged ASB cases.
On 14 December 2023 the resident reported a person dressed as a food delivery operative coming and going from the property, allegedly purchasing drugs and using a crackpipe. The resident also made a further complaint the same day stating the landlord’s failure to address all issues raised in her email on 23 November 2023 and the issues of dumping items should not need a crime reference number nor should the fact that the neighbour was not consistently living in her flat and potentially subletting. The resident requested the landlord confirmed if it was going to address those issues with the neighbour. The landlord was asked to address all points raised. The landlord confirmed the next day a new ASB case had been opened and for the resident to report the drug use to the police for a crime reference number. The resident did that and provided an update to the landlord including the crime reference number and photographs of the food delivery operative and the dumped items on 21 December 2023.
On 12 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said it had still not addressed the ASB issues reported in December 2023, and she was waiting on the response to the Stage one complaint she had raised. She asked for an update. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2024 and included this Service in her email. The resident said she had not had a full response to her Stage one complaint that was sent in mid-December and not to the original report made on 23 November 2023.
That resident also said she had not been updated of the outcome of a meeting that the landlord said it had arranged with the neighbour the previous year and had not had a response to the report of drug use which she reported to the police and provided a crime reference number. The landlord had not responded to the report of dumping in communal areas by the ASB tenant and those items had not been removed by the tenant. She had not been called back regarding the neighbour’s misuse of her flat. The landlord was not addressing issues quickly enough leaving affected tenants without any idea as to whether the ASB tenant had been dealt with in accordance with the ASB policy. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two immediately because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of response to the stage one complaint.
The landlord’s records showed it spoke to the resident on 23 January 2024 and established her concerns. Those concerns included the items that had been dumped, there had been six incidents of ASB in three years, where in the ASB policy was the neighbour in terms of the action taken as she had not heard anything about actions and was told to just call the police so it felt like residents were left to deal with it but had sent list of incidents with crime reference numbers to the landlord.
On 23 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the emails sent on 14 December 2023 and 21 January 2023 request and that it would escalate the complaint to stage two. The resident was informed she would receive the response by 20 February 2024.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 February 2024 and stated:
1. Update in relation to 16 September 2023 incident: It had been in touch with the police to gain relevant information and the matter had been forwarded to a different ward within police departments. It would update her with any relevant information but may not disclose everything due to data protection regulations.
2. Update on contacting the neighbour: it invited the alleged perpetrator to its office to meet on 4 January 2023, but the neighbour did not turn up. It visited the neighbour’s property on 5 October 2023, but no response was given. The neighbour was invited to its offices for a meeting on 3 November 2023 but she did not turn up however was told the neighbour was in hospital and she was to call the landlord, but it never happened.
3. Update in relation to police raid in May 2023: The Police did raid the neighbour’s property. There was no information available to ascertain why they raided the property or what had happened since.
4. Management move: it had given the resident advice already on that and the resident had agreed to send it photos in relation to items left in the shared garden by the alleged perpetrator and asked was it certain that if those items were left by the subject tenant.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 1 March 2024. The landlord said the stage 1 response was accurate in concluding that there had been service failures. In particular, the completion of the action plan following the resident’s first ASB incident report fell significantly outside of its service level agreement and apologised. The service failure was further aggravated by the ongoing impact that the ASB had on the resident. It considered the compensation offer in its stage one response to have been calculated incorrectly, as it did not fully account for the impact of the service failure over a prolonged period of time. It had revised the compensation award to £450. It had also considered it’s more recent case management. In order to improve its communication in respect of the ongoing ASB case management, it’s Tenancy Specialist had set ‘follow up dates’ in order to keep her updated. It had noted the resident’s vulnerability data had been recorded and that a reasonable adjustment was listed. It would also carry out ongoing reviews of the case to ensure that the resident was continuing to receive appropriate updates, and its case management was completed in accordance with its ASB procedures. It had arranged an award of £450 compensation consisting of £350 to reflect failures of service in ASB case handling / communication and £100 for its complaint response being outside of its service level agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the reported ASB affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
As per paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Within the resident’s communication with the landlord and this Service after the landlord’s stage two response, the resident contacted the landlord regarding its handling of ASB from the neighbour.
This investigation report cannot consider any issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint by the resident can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint regarding the landlord’s actions after the stage two response was issued to get those matters investigated.

The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour

It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. It is not however the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
Section 4.1 of the landlord’s ASB policy states to effectively prevent and tackle ASB it will take steps including:
1. Log all reports of ASB and any referrals to statutory bodies and monitor the outcomes. Ensure it considers a range of interventions (e.g. ABC’s, tenancy support, and warning letters)
2. To deter or prevent ASB and where appropriate take legal action by way of injunctions and/or possession proceedings – using mandatory grounds where applicable.
3. Provide advice and support to victims and witnesses.
4. Take action to evict a perpetrator where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so and the evidence is sufficient and robust enough for a successful possession action.
When the resident made her reports of antisocial behaviour in May 2022 the landlord acknowledged the reports and opened up an antisocial behaviour case. This would be the expected action of the landlord. The resident was informed by letter on 26 May 2022 and 31 May 2022 that her reports were being investigated, an incident diary was included for the resident to record any details of further incidents, and an action plan was provided which included the resident completing the incident sheets and the landlord to speak to the police. This again would be the expected action by the landlord.
Based on the case reference numbers provided to the resident in those letters, the evidence provided showed a crime reference number was provided to the landlord but there was no evidence of the landlord making contact with the police to establish any further facts or that the landlord took any further action to investigate the reports. There was also no evidence of the landlord making contact with the resident to discuss her action plan, for further information or to provide her with any updates prior to the ASB case being closed.
The landlord then suffered a cyber-attack affecting its ability to access its systems however it did recontact the resident in November 2022 and confirmed with the resident there was no further incidents.
When the resident reported further ASB from the neighbour on 16 September 2023 the landlord again responded appropriately and opened an ASB case and provided incident diaries to the resident. However, there was no evidence that any action plans were provided or when that the landlord would next update the resident.
The resident in an email to the landlord on 21 September 2022 stated she had not been kept informed of the progress of her ASB reports but was aware another neighbour had been. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 September 2023 asking for an update. Based on the evidence provided by the landlord there was no evidence the landlord provided the resident with any updates or kept in contact with the resident regarding her reports until it wrote to her on 19 October 2023 and provided an action plan and committed to contacting the police. This was over one month later and was a failure by the landlord that it failed to acknowledge.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to obtain evidence from other sources such as speaking to the other neighbours about the behaviours complained about and undertaking a police disclosure. Although the landlord stated as part of the action plan it provided that it would contact other neighbours and the police by 2 November 2023 there is no evidence provided that it did so.
In addition to that, the resident emailed the landlord on 21 November 2023 stating the previous reports she had made including criminal damage had not received a response or update from the landlord and she had not been updated as the landlord committed to on 19 October 2023. This was an opportunity for the landlord to review the case and provide the resident with an update of the current status. The landlord’s response however was to inform the resident the next day that it was sorry that she had been experiencing those issues, but as her report contained details about criminal behaviour, it required her to get a crime reference number from the police. The landlord said if it did not receive a crime reference number within seven days, it may be unable to investigate her concerns, and the case may be closed.
The landlord has not evidenced it appropriately considered the resident’s email or that it reviewed its own records to establish that the resident was requesting an update on the existing case. The response from the landlord was inadequate and showed a lack of understanding of the issues the resident had been trying to get an update about which would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
This prompted the resident to chase the landlord again on 27 November 2022 stating she had had no formal response in writing to her stage one complaint and it was outside the response deadline. The resident asked again regarding it liaising with the police meeting with the neighbour. If the landlord had met with the neighbour, she wanted updates on the meeting. These questions indicated she had not been provided with the updates the landlord had committed to and there is no evidence that completed those actions or updated her at that point.
The stage one response concluded there had been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the ASB reports and this Service agrees with that conclusion. The landlord stated it would monitor the ASB case to ensure the resident was kept updated and ensure the police were contacted about the recent incidents. It would also arrange for the resident to be contacted about her moving options. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and offered compensation. The landlord’s complaint response recognised its failings up to that point. It was positive that the landlord identified and acknowledged the service failures in the stage one response. The landlord would therefore have been expected to learn from those failings in its handling of the existing and any future reports of ASB.
The resident provided on 21 December 2023 a crime reference number for the report of drug dealing from November 2023, photographic evidence of the alleged person dressed as a food delivery operative, photo evidence and the police reference number of a drug deal on 14 December 2023 and photos of dumped items. The landlord acknowledged the email the following day. From the evidence provided however there was no evidence the landlord investigated those reports prompting the resident to make contact again on 12 January 2024. The landlord confirmed on 16 January 2024 that it had passed the photographs supplied by the resident to its customer solution team.
For each of those issues the landlord has not evidenced it followed its ASB policy or the commitment it made in the stage one response including providing the resident with action plans or updates. This indicated the landlord had not learnt from the complaint. It is understandable therefore that the resident felt her reports were not being appropriately considered. From the evidence provided the landlord did not investigate those events until after the stage two response was issued which was a significant delay from when the issues were first reported. This also meant that it could not progress any enforcement actions if required under the terms of its ASB policy.
Although the landlord provided evidence it contacted the police in February 2024, this was the first evidence of it doing so. This was despite the resident confirming to the landlord in January 2024 that she had provided reference numbers for the reports made in November 2021, May 2022, August 2022, January 2023, September 2023 and November 2023.
The landlord in the stage two response detailed that it had attempted to contact the neighbour three times between October 2023 and January 2024. Given the context of the reports made and given that the more recent reports were in addition to the issues being reported over a much longer period of time. The landlord making three attempts in a four-month period was not adequate. The landlords evidence showed its records indicated a police disclosure request was made on 12 January 2024 however no details of the request were provided to this Service.
The landlord’s ASB policy states in section 1.8 that where ASB is the result of criminal activity it will expect residents to report criminal behaviour to the police and it will expect the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so. The evidence provided showed the resident did contact the police and provided the details to the landlord however the landlord has not evidenced it has investigated the residents report within expected timescales or as required by its antisocial behaviour policy and this was a failure by the landlord.
The resident in her complaint had made the landlord aware she had PTSD due to violence and that the incidents she was reporting was affecting her. The landlord would be expected to consider the resident’s reports and her vulnerabilities in its handling of the reported ASB. There was no evidence provided that showed the landlord gave any consideration to the residents PTSD or that it provided any additional support to her other than providing telephone numbers and websites in the stage one response. This was a failing by the landlord that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident given her vulnerabilities and the nature of the ASB being reported.
The resident also requested she was moved due to the incidents being reported and the effect it was having on her vulnerabilities. The landlord responded by informing the resident in its stage one response that management moves were only offered to customers in exceptional circumstances, such as a risk to life and where the police had recommended so it was unable to offer a management move. While it did explain the criteria it would have been appropriate of the landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances given the resident stating the ASB was having a direct effect on her vulnerabilities. The resident made requests on at least three occasions but there is no evidence the landlord gave any consideration, discussed the requests with the resident or provided her with an outcome of the requests.
In the landlord’s update to the Ombudsman regarding this case it confirmed the resident had been accepted for a management transfer in September 2024. The landlord noted the acceptance was due to the effects of the ASB being reported. This acceptance came over two years after the resident first requested a management move and given the resident’s vulnerabilities and the types of ASB she was reporting the landlord has not evidenced it gave any consideration to her request during the period covered in this investigation. There was a failure by the landlord to consider the effect of the ASB being reported on the resident’s vulnerabilities at an earlier stage.
Overall, the landlord’s failure to evidence it considered the residents vulnerabilities and consider any reasonable adjustments during the period covered in this investigation, and the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports amounts to maladministration by the landlord. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation for its handling of the ASB reports in the stage two response. Given that the landlord identified service failures in the stage one complaint response and those continued up to the landlord’s stage two response the offer of compensation was not adequate, and the landlord should pay the resident an additional £250 for the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the residents reports of ASB.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint

It is clear the resident made her complaint on 16 September 2023. The landlord responded to that complaint on 12 December 2023. The landlord therefore responded after 62 working days. This was significantly outside the landlord’s complaint policy timescales of 10 working days. During that time there was no evidence the landlord informed the resident of a delay or provided an update to her complaint during that time.
This was a failure by the landlord which it acknowledged in its complaint response. It offered the resident £50 for the delay but given the length of time for the stage one response to be provided and the lack of communication to the resident regarding that despite there being further incidents of ASB being reported, the landlord’s offer was not appropriate.
When the resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2023, she stated she was making a stage one complaint about the landlord’s failure to address all issues raised in her email from November 2023. Those issues did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint and were not referred to in the stage one response. The landlord therefore should have raised a new stage one complaint for the resident or discussed with the resident if she was happy for it to include the response at stage two and it has failed to evidence it did so.
The landlord did address that complaint as part of its stage two response however in doing so it deprived the resident of a stage one response and the option of her requesting an escalation if she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response before bringing the complaint to this service. This was a failure by the landlord.
By issuing the response as part of the stage two response on 1 March 2024 the resident did not receive the outcome to that complaint until 54 working days after the landlord first received the complaint.
The landlord confirmed the complaint had been escalated to the second stage of its complaints procedure on 24 January 2024 and it aimed to provide a formal response within 20 working days by 20 February 2024.
The stage two response however was not issued until 01 March 2024.
The landlord in its stage two response increased the compensation to £100 for complaint response delays. However, for the further delay in issuing the stage two complaint indicating it had not learned from the stage one response, and the landlord not raising the new issues reported on 14 December 2023 as a stage one complaint or discussing it with the resident the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100.

Determination

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

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident and apologise to her for its handling of her reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. Pay the resident £250 for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. This compensation is to be paid directly to the resident.
3. Pay the resident £100 for its handling of the resident’s complaint. This compensation is to be paid directly to the resident.
4. Pay the resident the £450 it offered the resident in the stage two response if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

The landlord reviews it’s processes for monitoring cases of ASB and ensures residents are kept updated of their cases including issuing relevant letters and actions plans to residents.