From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202425929)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425929

Clarion Housing Association Limited

6 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:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour.
    2. The management transfer.
    3. Repairs to the electrics and front door.
    4. Communication with the resident.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the property which is a 2–bedroom flat. The resident lived in the property with her brother. She has reported that she has a mental health condition which deteriorated during the complaint. She said her brother was a recovering alcoholic who relapsed during the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s records state that the resident first reported the ASB from her neighbour on 19 March 2024. It confirmed the report was about the neighbour threatening and targeting the resident and her brother for the previous 3 months. The neighbour had said that the resident and her brother were Jewish and responsible for the war in Palestine. The neighbour had “ripped out her electricity box” and after the landlord repaired it, they ripped it off again on 18 March 2024. The resident could not stay at the property due to the neighbour’s behaviour. It noted that other residents had also reported the neighbour.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 June 2024. She said she was unable to stay in her home due to the neighbour who lived opposite. She said the neighbour was an unauthorised occupier and did not have a tenancy. She said the police had advised her that it was too high risk for her to return home. The resident had not lived at her property since December 2023 and was sleeping on her mother’s floor. She did not feel she should be liable for her rent within that period.
  4. The resident also felt that the landlord had not handled her ASB case well. She said her housing officer had not visited her and the landlord had not safeguarded her. She said the landlord had not taken any action against the perpetrator and it was taking too long to sort out. She said she sent emails to the landlord every day with no response. She said her whole life had been uprooted and she was heartbroken. She said her mental health problems had become worse as a result of the situation. Finally, she said that the landlord had approved a management transfer and she would like it to go ahead as soon as possible.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 23 July 2024. It apologised for the delays caused and in responding to the complaint. It confirmed the following:
    1. It provided a timeline of events which included contacting the resident on 21 March 2024 to complete an action plan. It said it agreed to deliver safety devices to help keep the resident safe at home. It said it would contact the police for a disclosure. It said on 25 March 2024 it advised the resident to go to the local authority for temporary accommodation as it could not provide that service. On 8 April 2024 it confirmed that the resident was still liable for rent. On 9 May 2024 it told the resident she was accepted onto the management transfer list.
    2. It said the resident had reported her neighbour for attempting to gain access into her property and of being the perpetrator of the crimes she had reported. The landlord said it was yet to receive any evidence to support that position. It said it would investigate but was unable to pursue any enforcement actions without evidence. It said it had handled the case in line with its policy and procedure and safeguarded the resident where possible. It concluded that there was no service failure in its handling of the ASB case.
    3. The landlord referred to a timeframe between 9 May 2024 and 14 June 2024 where it did not respond to the resident’s emails. It said this was because of annual leave but acknowledged it was not acceptable. It apologised for any inconvenience or frustration caused. It said it had reviewed its communication and would aim to respond more quickly moving forward.
    4. It said under its management transfer policy it aimed to move people within a 3-month period but it could take longer. It said the resident’s chances of being offered a property sooner could be improved by widening her preferred search areas. It said it would contact her as soon as a property became available.
    5. It said it made her door safe and secure in mid-June 2024. It said it had attended again following the resident’s most recent report and made it safe and secure in mid-July 2024.
    6. It said its records showed it attended to her electrics and completed the repairs in March 2024. It said it did not have any further reports from the resident about further damage caused. It advised the resident to contact the repairs team if there had been further damage or another attempt at removal. It said it had attended to all repairs within its service level agreement of 28 days and therefore there was no failure in its handling of them.
    7. The landlord referred to a telephone call in which it said the resident had displayed a lot of aggression and the call had to be terminated due to the language used. It acknowledged the resident’s situation but said if her behaviour continued it would take further action.
    8. It awarded £100 in compensation. £50 was to reflect its communication failures and £50 was for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint the next day. She outlined all the issues she had experienced with the neighbour. She said the neighbour did not have a tenancy and yet they were allowed to stay in the building and continue harassing her. She said they had targeted other neighbours too. She requested immediate action to rehouse her and her brother, a review of her rent payments, and an investigation into the handling of her case.
  7. The resident said the landlord had initially agreed it would install a metal door to secure the property, but it was no longer being pursued. She said the neighbour had tampered with her main electric box and the landlord’s contractor removed the main fuse as it was dangerous. She said this left her without electricity. The resident said if she wanted to stay in the property, she would not be able to do so due to not having an electric supply. She stated that contractors had refused to return due to the safety concerns with the neighbour. The resident reiterated that her mental health had significantly deteriorated and provided her GP notes to support that.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 9 September 2024. It said the following:
    1. It noted her concerns regarding a lack of response to her emails and concerns. It said it had sent 2 warning letters to the resident regarding her communication, and she was blocked from calling her tenancy specialist (TS) directly. But this did not mean the TS should not have responded to her emails and calls. It said the team had experienced significant resourcing issues which resulted in delays in case management and progression. It said it had asked the tenancy specialist manager to set up weekly meetings with her TS to progress the case. It apologised for the delays with her case and awarded £750 in compensation.
    2. It reiterated its position on the rent and service charges. It said there was no policy or procedure which required it to provide a rebate for rent or service charges if a resident was no longer residing at the property due to ASB. It said the resident would need to discuss council tax with the local authority.
    3. It said that while it had authorised the management transfer on 18 April 2024, it did not add her to the management transfer list. It said as a result no-one had been actively looking for properties for the resident in that time. It outlined its investigations into the error and explained why the resident would not have been adversely affected by the error. It said the case had now been given high priority and offered £750 in recognition of the seriousness of the error.
    4. It noted that the resident requested compensation for the distress and trauma suffered. The landlord said it was unable to compensate for the behaviour of her neighbour and it had awarded compensation due to the errors in its case management. It also awarded £150 for the delay in providing the stage 2 response. Therefore, the total compensation offered at stage 2 was £1,650.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. While she has now been moved to another property, she would like compensation for the lack of support from the landlord and for what she had endured throughout the complaint. She feels the landlord should have reimbursed her rent and paid decant payments for the time she was unable to live in the property. The resident said the communication from her landlord had been terrible from the beginning.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In her communication to the Ombudsman, the resident has referred to the cost of the rent at her new property and that the landlord should consider a decant payment for the time she was not living in her property, as there was no electrical supply. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate a complaint which has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This is because both parties need to have the opportunity to provide their position on a complaint and address it accordingly. As these concerns were raised after the stage 2 response, we will not be able to consider them in this investigation.
  2. We understand that the resident is currently liaising with the landlord in relation to the above issues. If she remains dissatisfied with any response, she may wish to raise a new complaint with her landlord.
  3. It is recognised that the situation was distressing for the resident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or loss of/damage to personal belongings. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this concern.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy confirms that it uses the term ASB to incorporate harassment and hate crime. It states that it will adopt a supportive approach when dealing with victims, witnesses, and alleged perpetrators. It says it will work in partnership with internal and external partners to tackle the issue. It says where ASB is the result of criminal activity, it expects residents to report criminal behaviour to the police. It also expects the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at that visit. It says further repairs may then subsequently be required. It says non-emergency repairs should be completed as soon as possible and should be within 28 days.
  3. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will consider a management transfer where a customer is experiencing serious ASB that is putting or likely to put the tenant at serious risk of harm. It says it can carry out additional security measures to properties subject to an assessment of the cost and the level of threat while waiting for a suitable alternative property. It says these could include window and door mortise locks, door bolts, chains, spy holes, arson proof letter boxes, and personal alarms.
  4. The management transfer policy says the circumstances of the individual case and customer will dictate how frequently the tenancy specialists should communication with the tenant. But where a management transfer policy has been awarded, the minimum requirement in line with its commitments is for it to review the case every 3 weeks.

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

  1. It is relevant to highlight that ASB issues can be challenging for a landlord to resolve, particularly where there are evidential difficulties and concurrent criminal prosecutions. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that a landlord has responded within its stated timescales, taken a proactive and proportionate approach, worked with partner agencies where appropriate, and explored the options available to it. In dealing with ASB, landlords should assess risk, fulfil their safeguarding responsibilities, and be mindful of the specific needs of the parties involved. 
  2. The landlord has demonstrated that its initial response to the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbour was reasonable. It put in place an action plan with proportionate actions for it to undertake, such as liaise with the police and deliver safety devices to the resident’s home. The safety devices appeared to be a personal alarm and window and door alarms. It was also reasonable for it to outline the process for the resident to request temporary/emergency accommodation through the local authority and to offer to assist with that process.
  3. It was positive to see that the landlord initially considered an injunction and chased the police for disclosure to progress the application. It is evident that the limited information provided by the police hindered this, but this was mitigated by the bail conditions which were already in place at the time. It is reasonable for a landlord to be guided by the outcome of a police investigation. However, it is important that reasonable steps are taken by the landlord to investigate any incidents reported itself.
  4. In its stage 1 response, the landlord referred to being unable to identify the perpetrator. However, in an internal email dated 18 April 2024, it confirmed that it had corroboration from other neighbours as to who the perpetrator was. Prior to the stage 2 response, there is no evidence of the landlord considering or attempting to make contact with the alleged perpetrator or the tenant with whom they were living with. This was a failing.
  5. In her stage 2 escalation, the resident asked why the landlord allowed the neighbour to stay in the building. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined any steps it had considered to address the issue in its stage 2 response. It did not do so.
  6. In her communications to the landlord, it is clear that the resident felt targeted and afraid to return to the property. Some of the reports included a hate crime, threats of and actual violence towards her, and tampering with her electrics. The resident stated on more than one occasion that her mental health had deteriorated as a result of the situation. And she provided supporting medical evidence. She felt the landlord had not safeguarded her or supported her.
  7. The landlord has stated that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the household. This was not appropriate given the information provided to it by the resident. A continuous risk assessment would have helped to document and identify any wellbeing concerns and or potential harm to the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord considering or completing a risk assessment. This would have been in line with best practice and could have determined whether the resident needed additional support or referrals to other agencies. In the absence of this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord appropriately supported the resident.
  8. Overall, the landlord showed that it put some measures in place to assist with the resident’s safety such as an approved management transfer and the safety devices. It was also aware that the resident was not residing in the building and bail conditions were in place by the police. Its advice and information regarding temporary/emergency accommodation was in line with its policies. As was its advice regarding why it could not reimburse her rent.
  9. As stated, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shown consideration towards what other investigation or action it could take in relation to the alleged perpetrator. While evidence has been provided of it visiting them after the stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable to have taken this step sooner. It would have also been appropriate to have evidenced that it completed a risk assessment for the resident and considered what more it could do to support her during what was clearly a distressing time.
  10. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from her neighbour. The landlord must pay £300 to the resident in recognition of its failures and for the likely distress caused to the resident in not feeling supported by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the landlord has not acknowledged its failings and not put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the management transfer.

  1. The resident felt that the landlord did not progress her management transfer quickly enough. On 8 April 2024 the landlord confirmed it would send the resident a management transfer form to support a move. It said it was still waiting for information from the police. The landlord’s records show this was authorised on 18 April 2024. It is unclear why it did not notify the resident until 9 May 2024.
  2. In its communication to the resident, the landlord said she was at serious risk of harm and would be placed on a priority move list. It said she did not need to do anything as it would check for available properties and contact her once one became available. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there can be delays in finding suitable accommodation, especially given the shortage of housing stock available. The landlord acted reasonably in managing the resident’s expectations about its limitations due to availability and the locations she had requested. It advised her on more than one occasion to consider widening her required areas to obtain a quicker move.
  3. However, it is evident that the landlord’s failure to add the resident to the management transfer list had the potential to cause delays and missed opportunities. In its stage 2 response, the landlord highlighted its error and awarded £750 in light of it. The Ombudsman finds its response was appropriate and the compensation offer was proportionate to the failings identified. It was positive for it to consider the detriment to the resident and the seriousness of such an error for someone in the resident’s position.
  4. Overall, while there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the management transfer, the landlord has appropriately acknowledged its failings and offered redress which was in line with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress.

Repairs to the electrics and front door

  1. When the resident first reported the tampering of electrics, the landlord attended and completed the repairs on the same day which was appropriate and in line with its policy. In its stage 1 response, it outlined the action it had taken and said it had not had any further reports of damage. It said if there was, then the resident should contact its repairs team, and it would be booked in as a priority.
  2. On 24 July 2024, the resident said the neighbour had tampered with her main electric box and the landlord’s contractor had removed the main fuse as it was dangerous. The resident said this left her without electricity and even if she wanted to stay, there was no electric supply. She said the contractors had refused to return due to safety concerns caused by the neighbour. She asked why she should pay full rent with no electricity.
  3. The landlord has not provided any records from that time to support or dispute the resident’s version of events, which is not appropriate. While typically it would not be appropriate to leave a resident without a supply of electricity, the landlord was aware that the resident was not living in the property. In not providing a response, it is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine whether its actions were reasonable. The landlord should have explained its decision making and responded to the resident in its stage 2 response. It is a failing that it did not do so.
  4. The Ombudsman has seen notes from the landlord on 30 January 2025 in which it attended the resident’s property regarding the electrics. The notes stated that the meter and cupboard had been vandalised and that it had removed the main fuse for safety. It said the electrical supplier needed to be contacted to replace the damaged meter. It said an isolator may need to be installed within the meter cupboard and the electrics to be checked. The landlord noted it had spoken with the resident who said her electrical supplier said it was for the landlord to resolve the issue. She felt she was going round in circles.
  5. As we cannot investigate events which took place after the stage 2 response, the above information has solely been included for context. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that while the electric supplier would be responsible for the meter itself, it is unlikely to be able to prevent tampering from a third party. It would have been reasonable following the resident’s reports for the landlord to have evidenced that it considered target hardening in respect of the meter box. This could have included liaising with the police, erecting signage, restricting access, or exploring installation of a protective case.
  6. Ultimately, the landlord had an obligation to respond to the resident’s reports regarding the electric supply and it did not sufficiently do so. The resident queried why she should pay full rent with no electric supply. As stated by the landlord, while the tenancy was in place the resident was responsible for paying rent, regardless of whether she was residing in the property. As such, we would not order the landlord to reimburse the resident’s rent. We will, however, award compensation for the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident and consider any additional action it could take.
  7. In relation to the front door, the landlord has evidenced that it initially responded and made it safe when reported. It did this in line with its repair timescales and obligations. The resident’s dissatisfaction was that she said the landlord told her it would fit a ‘Sitex’ security door and it did not do so. On 22 July 2024 in an internal email the landlord confirmed that the door was secure and made safe, it said it would only fit a metal door if it was deemed necessary. It said it would be excessive in this situation and would only be done in situations where the door was completely missing or broken.
  8. In its stage 1 response on 23 July 2024 the landlord maintained that it had made her door safe and secure. On 24 July 2024 the resident said the landlord told her that it had fitted her door with a new lock, and it was in good condition. She provided a video which she said showed her door was still damaged and the lock had been tampered with. She said the landlord had not installed a new lock and queried why it said it had.
  9. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether a security door or new lock was required. However, we would expect the landlord to have been clear in its decision making to the resident in order to reassure her and manage her expectations. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman of the landlord taking any action regarding the lock until 22 August 2024. As the resident had suggested the landlord did not fit a new lock and the security of the door was potentially compromised, we would expect the landlord to have responded sooner.
  10. Overall, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the electrics and doors at the property. While we have seen evidence of the landlord responding to most of the reports in line with its policy, the landlord should have evidenced its position on reinstating the electric supply and the security of the door. In not doing so, this likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident in having to chase the landlord and worry about the safety of her property.
  11. The Ombudsman awards £300 compensation to reflect the failings found. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures which the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged.

Communication with the resident

  1. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in contact with the resident between 9 May 2024 and 14 June 2024 where she sent emails to which it did not respond. It provided the reasons for this, apologised, and said it would endeavour to respond more quickly moving forward. It awarded £50 in compensation for the communication failures and £50 for the delays in provided the stage 1 response.
  2. In her stage 2 escalation the resident reported that her calls and emails were still not being responded to. The landlord’s stage 2 response reasonably outlined that while it had issued warning letters to the resident regarding her own communication, there was no reason she should not be receiving a response. The landlord provided some of the reasons why she may not have received a response which had delayed the progression of her case. It said it had set up weekly meetings with her tenancy specialist to progress her case. It apologised and offered £750 in compensation.
  3. The landlord also offered £150 in compensation for providing its stage 2 response outside of timescales. Altogether, the landlord offered £200 for its delays in responding to the complaint. The amount was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures which adversely impacted the resident.
  4. Where a landlord has acknowledged its failures, we will consider whether its offer of redress was reasonable. We will also consider if it was in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes.
  5. In this case, the landlord did not dispute that its communication had been poor, it apologised and offered compensation and learning to put things right. Its compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration and appropriately reflected the level of detriment likely caused to the resident.
  6. The resident has stated that after the stage 2 response, the tenancy specialist was no longer in the role and that the landlord’s communication continued to be poor. The resident referred to the communication restrictions put in place by the landlord and felt this had an impact on the lack of response. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine whether the communication restrictions should remain in place. However, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to review the current restrictions in place and whether they remain appropriate.
  7. Overall, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the communication with the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the neighbour.
    2. Repairs to the electrics and front door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the management transfer
    2. The landlord’s handling of communication with the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise to the resident for the additional failings identified in this case.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident £600 in compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears.
  3. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the orders within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review the current communication restrictions in place and whether they remain appropriate. Following this, it should clarify with the resident how she should make contact with it and when she should expect to receive a response to her queries, in line with its polices.
  2. The landlord should review its records in this case and why decisions such as removing the fuse and not reinstating the electric supply were not sufficiently documented. It should consider whether changes are required to improve its record keeping practices.