Clarion Housing Association Limited (202435416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435416

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
2. request to make safe electric cabling

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house and is an assured short-hold tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident has vulnerabilities which include PTSD. She lives with 2 children who also have medical conditions.
In October 2023 the resident first raised concerns regarding electrical cabling. In June 2024 the resident reported issues of ASB relating to the actions of her neighbour. On 1 October 2024 she raised an issue about health and safety due to electrical cables that she said were loose.
On 8 October 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord about how it had handled her reports of ASB. After speaking to the resident the landlord wrote to her on 15 October 2024 to confirm that her complaint also included issues with the electric cabling and missing roof tiles.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 24 October 2024. It said:
1. an Area Manager had reviewed the cabling and there were no issues in terms of health and safety regulations
2. the main supply cable was the electricity distributors responsibility, and the resident could contact them if she had concerns
3. it had addressed the reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures
4. it was dealing with the roof tile issue and had started the tenancy breach process with the resident’s neighbour to resolve this
5. it did not uphold any aspect of the resident’s complaint
The resident escalated her complaints about the ASB and electric cabling on 26 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 December 2024. It said:
1. it had already explained how the resident could take the issue of the electrical cabling further and the actions it would take to support the resident
2. it had acted in line with its policies and procedures when dealing with the resident’s ASB reports
3. to provide further assistance it could offer the services of its Housing Resident Liaison Officer who could act as a point of contact for the resident’s reports
4. as the complaint response was sent outside its normal timescales it would offer £50 compensation for this.
The resident referred her case to the Service on 12 December 2024. At the time she wanted the landlord to increase the offer of compensation and resolve the ASB.
The alleged perpetrator moved from the neighbouring property in May 2025. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the resident contacted the electricity distributors, the electric meter box and cabling was moved in June 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We understand that there is a long history of ASB reports by the resident. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of ASB from 1 October 2023. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords promptly (at the time within 12 months). This is to ensure the landlord has a fair opportunity to consider its handling of issues while they are ‘live’, and while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion.
We also note that the resident raised several new instances of ASB after the landlord had issued its stage 2 complaint response. As these reports were new, the landlord has not had a fair opportunity to assess its handling of these ASB reports. As such, our investigation has focussed on the landlord’s actions up to its stage 2 complaint response on 11 December 2024.
Although the resident raised a complaint about the missing roof tiles at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint process, this issue was not escalated to stage 2. In the interest of fairness the scope of this investigation has focussed on the issues that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to respond to any reported dissatisfaction and exhaust all stages of its process before we can look at a complaint.
It is also noted that the resident has told us that she had concerns about the way the landlord had handled repair requests, her request to move home and the conduct of its staff. However, these issues were not raised as part of the resident’s formal complaint. As the landlord needs a fair opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns, our investigation has focussed on the 2 issues about ASB and electric cabling. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s actions regarding these issues she should raise this directly with the landlord in the first instance.

Reports of ASB

The landlord’s ASB policy has 3 categories which are:
1. crime – where a crime reference number is provided it will investigate cases within 5 working days, or within 1 working day if it is classified as an ‘urgent crime’
2. noise – it will investigate cases within 5 working days when its threshold is met
3. other ASB – it will respond and contact the resident within 5 working days
On 12 June 2024 the resident reported that she had discovered bags of excrement outside her back door. The landlord responded the same day with an action plan and provided advice on support services the resident could use. This was reasonable as it was in line with its policy timescales.
The landlord contacted the local council who, on 25 June 2024, issued a community protection warning notice. At the same time the landlord issued a verbal warning to the neighbour and referred the case to its Tenancy Breach team. The landlord called the resident on 28 June 2024 to explain the actions taken. It discussed the ongoing action its Tenancy Breach team would take to monitor the situation, but that it could not disclose these details to her. It agreed it would close the case, and issued a closure letter to summarise the discussion. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which says it will work with ‘other agencies’ to determine the best course of action.
On 5 September 2024 the resident reported hearing banging noises for several hours at her home. The landlord acknowledged this report and on 15 September 2024 sent diary sheets for the resident to record any further instances. It asked the resident to return the sheets by 30 September 2024. This was a reasonable step to take, the landlord’s thresholds for noise in its ASB policy say it will take action where:
1. 3 separate incidents are reported within 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household
2. 5 separate incidents are reported within 28 days by the same person or member of the same household
3. 2 separate incidents are reported within 28 days by 2 or more people from different households
By providing the diary sheets to the resident it gave an opportunity for the landlord to evidence that these thresholds had been met.
The landlord issued a closure letter on 8 October 2024 as the resident had not returned the diary sheets. It discussed this with the resident who said that she did not feel like there was any point to completing the sheets and that she did not want to take any further action relating to noise. This was reasonable, the landlord was unable to take any further action due to insufficient evidence.
On 23 September 2024 the resident raised a new report about the actions of her neighbour. She said that the neighbour had refused to leave her alone and had said “racist things”. The landlord completed a risk assessment on 24 September 2024 and discussed the case with the resident on 25 September 2024. This was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s timescales for its ‘crime’ category of ASB. By completing a risk assessment the landlord showed that it was considering the resident’s individual circumstances, including the heightened impact due to her PTSD.
On 1 October 2024 it provided the resident with an action plan. This included requesting police disclosure on the matter and reviewing the resident’s video footage. It also asked the resident to report any further issues to the police. The landlord followed its policy where it says it would work with police on a collaborative basis.
The resident provided evidence to the landlord on 3 October 2024 of excrement on her garden shed which she said was due to her neighbour. She repeated her concern about the neighbour’s actions toward her and the alleged racism.
The landlord responded on 8 October 2024 and said the photos of excrement were not enough to act against the neighbour as the photos did not show who was responsible. However, it had contacted the local council to see if they had received any recent complaints. It said that it was continuing to investigate the resident’s case and asked the resident to reattach any video footage she had. This was reasonable, the landlord continued to communicate in line with its policy timescales and work with other agencies to try and resolve the issue.
On 23 October 2024 the landlord provided an update to the resident. It asked if the resident wanted it to contact the neighbour and advise them not to approach her. It also said:
1. it had reviewed photos and other footage but there is no evidence to show who was responsible for the excrement on the shed
2. the local council had advised that they had received no recent complaints involving the neighbour
3. the neighbour’s property and pet permissions were being dealt with by its Customer Support Team to try and resolve the issue
This update shows the landlord was proactive in handling the resident ASB report. It provided clear explanations on the steps it was taking to try to resolve the issue. The landlord also considered whether mediation was a possibility in line with its policy which says it would consider a ‘range of interventions’. However, due to the history of ASB reports the resident did not want to pursue this.
On 29 October 2024 the landlord reviewed further footage the resident had sent to it relating to a neighbour leaving a banana skin on top of the resident’s bin. The landlord said that it could not determine this was done with ‘malicious intent’, but if the resident considered this was a racist act she should report the issue to the police. It also asked if the resident wanted the landlord to discuss the issue of ASB she had reported with her neighbour. This response was reasonable, it showed the landlord was reviewing evidence quickly and responding to the resident with options on how to proceed.
In response the resident called the landlord on 15 November 2024. She said that on 27 October 2024 the police had tried to get into her property due to a malicious report from the neighbour. She also repeated her concerns around excrement not being cleaned and that the neighbour had been racist toward her. The landlord agreed to request further disclosure from the police and once this was received decide any further formal action. However, the resident told the landlord that she did not want it to approach the neighbour or send a warning.
On 29 November 2024 the landlord updated the resident to advise it was still awaiting full police disclosure and to ask if any further instances had occurred.
These actions were reasonable as the landlord followed its ASB policy which says that it will act in relation to criminal activity, but that the police would lead any investigation. It also agreed with the resident an approach to the case and abided by the resident’s request not to contact the neighbour.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord issued a closure letter to the resident. It said that no further action would be taken as there was insufficient evidence following its contact with the police. In addition, as the resident did not want it to contact the neighbour there was no proportionate action it could take. It did confirm that its Tenancy Breach team had contacted the neighbour in relation to pet permissions and conditions on owning a pet.
We understand that living with ASB can be very distressing and empathise with the situation the resident found herself in. We also recognise it can often be difficult for a landlord to resolve an issue to the satisfaction of the victim of ASB. However, in this case the evidence shows that the landlord acted promptly and in line with its policy. It worked with other agencies to ensure that there was a collaborative approach and its communication with the resident was proactive. Based on this we consider that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Electric cabling

While the landlord has no specific policy for electric cabling, for this complaint the responsibility for any works is shared. The electric distribution company is responsible for repairing or servicing entry cables that run to the property, but the landlord is responsible for the electric meter boxing.
On 23 October 2023 the resident first reported the issue of the electric cabling. She explained that a private contractor had attended her property and said that the electric meter and wires needed to be boxed in. The landlord’s electrician attended on 30 October 2023 and sent photos of the issue to a manager with the recommendation that the cabling be boxed in. This was reasonable as the landlord attended the property within its timescale for non-emergency repairs of 28 days.
Despite follow on work being requested, the resident had to chase the landlord on 2 January 2024 for an update. The landlord chased internally but provided no further information to the resident. She had to chase again on 31 January 2024. This was unreasonable, and did not follow its repair policy which says it will manage and deliver repairs consistently. The landlord failed to action the recommended follow-on work or communicate with the resident about the repair which caused her some distress and inconvenience.
On 6 February 2024 the electrician confirmed that the cabling was compliant with regulations and did not need to be boxed in. The landlord explained to the resident that it would not box in the cabling unless there was a specific reason or risk to the resident or her family. This was fair, the landlord ensured that a suitably qualified person was sent to assess the electric cabling. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of the electrician that the cabling did not need to be boxed in. At this time, the resident had not provided any details to suggest that there was a risk to her or her family.
On 1 October 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again to say that she was worried that her children had access to the electric cables. The landlord attended on 8 October 2024 and recorded that the mains cable was not insecure or against regulations. This aligned with a previous visit by the landlord in October 2023 where it was decided after an electrician visit that the electric meter would not be boxed in unless it posed a risk to the resident in her situation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable its attendance was prompt and conducted within a week of the repair being raised.
The resident contacted the landlord again in December 2024 as she had contacted the electric distribution company about the cabling. She said that this company had told her that the cabling should be moved or removed as it was in a dangerous position. The landlord responded to the resident within 5 working days and explained its position regarding the cabling was the same as it was in October 2023 and October 2024. It advised that as this concern was with the main incoming cables, then this would be the responsibility of the electric distribution company.
This was reasonable, the electric distribution company was responsible for the main incoming cables. The landlord had attended twice to check its responsibilities, and its electrician had confirmed that the cabling it was responsible for did meet regulations.
In the landlord’s complaint responses it repeated that its cabling was in line with regulations. However, the resident could contact the electric distribution company about her concerns if the issue related to the main incoming cables.
Taking all the circumstances into account there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the electric cabling issue. This is because the landlord failed to take any action or communicate with the resident between October 2023 and January 2024. While the landlord’s actions improved from February 2024 onwards, it failed to recognise the initial delay to its actions when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
This failure did not significantly affect the overall outcome of the resident but was inconvenient and led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response. Our remedies guidance suggests that payments of compensation between £50 to £100 is fair for service failures such as this one. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay £100 in recognition of the impact caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to make safe electric cabling.

Orders and Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. apologise to the resident for its service failure
2. pay £100 compensation to the resident
3. provide evidence that the above has been complied with