Clarion Housing Association Limited (202413672)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413672

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat.              
3. Between December 2023 and March 2024, the resident reported several incidents involving his neighbour. These incidents included:
   1. Vandalism to his car. 
   2. The neighbour shouting homophobic slurs. 
   3. Allowing her dog to foul in front of his window. 
   4. A third party informed him that the neighbour claimed he was only given a disabled parking bay because of his race and sexuality. 
   5. The resident confirmed that he had reported these incidents to the police. 
4. On 29 April 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. He was concerned about how the landlord had handled his ASB reports and said that the landlord had failed to support his needs.
5. On 29 May 2024, the landlord issued a stage 1 response, which outlined the following points:
   1. The resident was appointed a Single Point of Contact (SPOC).
   2. It was unable to investigate the complaint further due to insufficient details from the call made on 29 April 2024. Attempts to obtain more information from subsequent calls were also unsuccessful in clarifying the circumstances regarding the reports of ASB.
   3. It was noted that the resident preferred not to communicate by telephone, so an email address was provided to resubmit the complaint if desired.
   4. The landlord offered £50 in compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
6. On 30 May 2024 the resident escalated his complaint due to dissatisfaction with the compensation offered for what he said was ongoing reports of racism and homophobia. He expressed that during a recent call with the landlord, he found the call handler to be rude and unprofessional. Additionally, the landlord had ignored his preferred methods of communication.
7. On 1 July 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 response stating the following:
   1. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to progress the resident’s reports of ASB between February and May 2024, not following its established ASB procedures. The landlord apologised for not addressing this issue in its stage 1 response.
   2. A tenancy specialist has been assigned to handle the ASB case.
   3. A letter would be sent to all residents regarding the expectations for good neighbourly behaviour.
   4. The tenancy specialist team received training aimed at improving its service and implemented a service improvement plan.
   5. As compensation for the failures in handling the case, the landlord offered a total of £800, which included £700 for the failings identified in managing the case and £100 for not addressing the issues raised in the stage 1 response.
8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of ASB. He stated that he wanted compensation for damage to his car and indicated a desire to move if the landlord could offer him a comparable property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has reported that the ASB has been ongoing for 8 years. We encourage residents to submit complaints promptly, usually within 12 months of the issue arising. This allows the landlord to assess the complaint based on the available evidence to reach an informed decision on the events. Therefore, our assessment will focus on events following the resident’s reports from December 2023 through to the completion of the landlord’s complaints process.
10. In his correspondence with this Service, the resident asked to be compensated for the damage caused to his car. Matters concerning damage to personal property usually involve liability, which is best considered by a court or an insurance company that can determine responsibility. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to his reports and whether it was reasonable and aligned with its policies and procedures.

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

11. The landlord’s ASB policy has three specific categories for ASB: crime (category 1), noise (category 2), and other forms of ASB (category 3). When the threshold has been met, other forms of ASB will be investigated within 5 working days.
12. In December 2023, the resident reported that his car had been vandalised and believed he was being deliberately targeted. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident the following day to discuss his reports, demonstrating a prompt response. Despite this initial contact, there is no evidence that the landlord took any additional actions, such as contacting the police to follow up on the vandalism report or his reports of being targeted by his neighbour, which was unreasonable.
13. On 29 January 2024, the resident reported two further ASB instances to the landlord, including homophobic slurs directed at him and the neighbour’s dog fouling in close proximity to his window.
14. In response to these concerns, the landlord contacted the resident on 31 January 2024, to discuss formulating a comprehensive action plan. This was in line with its ASB policy. An action plan aims to clearly outline both parties’ expectations and responsibilities in addressing the reported ASB. This shows a commitment to fostering a respectful and safe community, and the need for reasonable resolutions are acknowledged and addressed effectively.
15. In April 2024, following the resident’s complaint that he was shouted at by his neighbour, the landlord provided the resident with diary sheets. This proactive measure was a reasonable step, as it allowed the resident to record the dates, times, and the impact these events had on him. By gathering this information, a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the situation could be established, ultimately supporting any necessary actions to address the issues at hand.
16. The landlord faced challenges in communicating with the resident. Notably, the resident had previously recorded calls without consent and reportedly exhibited confrontational behaviour during these calls. The landlord should have addressed these challenges with the resident directly, rather than neglecting to deal with the ASB because of them.
17. In his communications with the landlord, the resident felt targeted due to his protected characteristics. Although best practice recommends that landlords conduct a risk assessment, there is no evidence that this was carried out in this case. A risk assessment could have determined whether the resident needed additional support or referrals to other agencies.
18. Responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord addressed previous failures in managing his ASB reports and took positive steps to support the resident. This included:
    1. Arranging a face-to-face meeting with the resident on 6 June 2024.
    2. Requesting police disclosures to obtain any relevant information about incidents the resident reported.
    3. Developed an action plan with the resident.
19. While these actions show a commitment to improving services, the landlord should have addressed the issue reported in December 2023 instead of delaying for 6 months. It was unreasonable for the resident to have needed to complain for their concerns to be taken seriously, highlighting a failure to follow the ASB policy.
20. In June 2024, the landlord communicated with all residents in the neighbourhood about criminal damage to the resident’s car. The evidence available does not clarify whether or when the resident requested compensation for the damage. However, during the resolution process with our Service, the resident did ask for compensation to address his complaint.
21. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, residents may not be entitled to compensation for damage to personal items. The policy specifies that compensation may not be granted for any loss or damage resulting from the actions of a third party, which in this case refers to another resident in the block. Therefore, the resident is advised to contact his insurance provider to file a claim for the damages, as this is the appropriate course of action in these circumstances.
22. The resident felt that the landlord had overlooked his communication preferences. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged this and designated a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for the resident. It also referred him to the resident liaison team to better meet his needs. While these actions were helpful, the landlord admitted it should have implemented them sooner.
23. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the failures in its handing of the reports of ASB between February and May 2024, apologised, and offered £700 compensation.
24. The Ombudsman believes the compensation offered was reasonable. This is because it was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies. Furthermore, the landlord has committed to improving its processes by providing staff training on handling ASB cases and implementing a service improvement plan to prevent similar issues in the future. This approach aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles.
25. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of ASB.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Recommendation

27. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pay the resident the £800 compensation it offered, if this has not already been paid.