Clarion Housing Association Limited (202417330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417330

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 May 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 concerns about:
   1. the condition of the communal areas.
   2. noise nuisance from her neighbours’ pets.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in her first floor, 3 bedroom flat since January 2012.
3. On 25 January 2024 the resident reported that her neighbour had left rubbish in the communal areas. She also made a formal complaint to the landlord on the same day. She said:
   1. the smell in the communal areas had been ongoing for several years.
   2. her neighbours continued to leave rubbish bags and items in the communal area although the landlord had written to everyone and put notices on the items.
   3. she was being disturbed by dogs making scratching noises on the walls. It was happening every day from early morning to the evening.
4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 March 2024. It said:
   1. its policy was to issue a notice to residents for any items left in the communal area for a specified period, before removing them to allow the “perpetrators” enough time to remove their items. If items were not removed after the notice had expired, tenancy breach notices were issued, and the items would then be removed in order to ensure the safety of residents in the block.
   2. the recent items that had been left in the communal area had been removed on 13 February 2024.
   3. it would carry out regular inspections and would focus on monitoring any unusual smells.
   4. if the resident had concerns about her neighbours’ pets she should contact its housing team.
   5. in recognition of the delayed complaint response, it offered the resident £165 compensation.
5. On 25 March 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her original complaint, including the issues with her neighbours’ pets causing a noise nuisance. She added that she wanted “serious action” taken against her neighbours who left items in the communal areas.
6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2024. It said:
   1. it had visited the block several times and witnessed one occasion where someone had left items outside the property which was removed before the inspection ended.
   2. when it witnessed items left in the communal area it would follow it would issue a TORT notice which notified the resident of a deadline to remove the items before it took further action.
   3. it had reviewed the quality assurance inspection summary spreadsheet which covered the last 6 months. It confirmed that the block had been inspected monthly, and the standard had consistently been rated as “good”.
   4. it had not noticed any smells during its estate inspections. It was satisfied that it was monitoring the estate correctly and had followed its policy and procedure.
   5. in recognition of the delayed stage 2 complaint response, it offered the resident an additional £50 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

7. The resident has explained that the landlord’s handling of her substantive complaints has affected her health. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.
8. The resident has told this Service that the matters in relation to the condition of the communal areas have been ongoing for several years. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint that she referred to this Service for investigation. Therefore, this assessment has focussed on the period January 2024 onwards. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Any reference to earlier events is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal areas

9. The landlord’s neighbourhood policy stated that it would carry out regular inspections to ensure that local neighbourhoods were being looked after and to identify problems that needed to be addressed.

The smell in communal areas

10. The evidence provided shows that the landlord had carried out regular inspections at the time of the complaint. Having done so, it had not recorded any concerns about smells in the communal areas. As part of its complaint investigation, it also carried out an ad hoc inspection in April 2024. This was appropriate. It reported that there were no issues with the communal area.
11. Therefore, the landlord’s response that it would monitor the communal areas for any “unusual smells” in its future inspections was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. This demonstrated that while it had not witnessed the smell itself, it had listened to the resident’s concern and would monitor the matter.

Items left in the communal area

12. In her complaint, the resident stated that she wanted the landlord to take “serious” action against her neighbours who continued to leave items in the communal area. In response the landlord explained that it would issue a TORT notice in such circumstances, before taking further action.
13. The evidence shows that the items were subsequently removed. While unclear, the evidence suggests that the owner removed the items. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action.
14. It is noted that prior to the resident’s report and complaint of January 2024, she had reported the same issue in 2023 on one occasion. Given the length of time between reports, the landlord’s actions in terms of providing the owner(s) of the items the opportunity to remove them first, were proportionate in the circumstances.
15. Overall, the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were reasonable and proportionate. Therefore, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal areas.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from her neighbours’ pets

16. It is noted that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response. However, it is clear that the resident reiterated her concerns in her escalated complaint. Therefore, given the circumstances, it is reasonable for the Ombudsman to assess this complaint.
17. The evidence shows that the resident first reported being disturbed by the noise from her neighbours’ pets in her January 2024 complaint. In response, the landlord said that if she had concerns about the pets, she should contact its housing team. Its response was inadequate.
18. The resident had already made the landlord aware of her concerns through her complaint. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for it to have passed on her concerns to the relevant to team so it could contact the resident directly to discuss the matter further. Expecting the resident to make another report was unreasonable and caused her unnecessary time and trouble. Therefore, that there is no evidence that the landlord proactively progressed the resident’s reported concerns at this time is a failing.
19. Therefore, we have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about noise nuisance from her neighbour’s pets.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the communal areas.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from her neighbours’ pets.

Orders

22. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
    2. pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance from her neighbours’ pets.
    3. contact the resident to ascertain whether she has any current concerns about noise from her neighbours’ pets. If she does it should take reasonable steps to investigate her concerns.