Clarion Housing Association Limited (202111476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111476

Clarion Housing

24 February 2022

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:
1. handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
2. handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident held an assured tenancy to a one bedroom flat. The tenancy began on 12 March 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident had made the landlord aware of his vulnerabilities relating to mental health. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service, whether the landlord had this information on the resident’s record.
The neighbour involved in the case, lived in the flat above the resident. It is assumed that the neighbour would have been subject to the same tenancy terms as the resident.

ASB policy

The policy states that, “Anti-Social Behaviour’ (ASB) can take many forms. It defines ASB as, “ranging from noise nuisance, criminal damage, verbal abuse and other types of criminality.”
The policy explains the landlord’s expectations that residents will report criminal activity to the police, and that the police will take action.
The policy also explains the importance the landlord places on its collaboration with the police. It goes on to state, “We will also use the evidence they provide (such as details of calls or a criminal conviction) together with evidence we may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.”
The policy’s definition of ‘harassment’ includes ‘violent behaviour’. It says that this is generally a criminal offence, and is the responsibility of the police. It goes on to explain, “Where appropriate to do so, Clarion will take tenancy enforcement action against a perpetrator as a result of evidence obtained by the Police or upon conviction”.
Section four of the policy states the landlord will:
1. “ensure we consider a range of interventions (e.g. ABC’s, tenancy support, warning letters – this list is not exhaustive) to deter or prevent ASB and where appropriate take legal action by way of injunctions and/or possession proceedings – using mandatory grounds where applicable”.
2. “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”.
Section five of the policy details ‘specific standards’. With regards to ASB reports categorised as ‘crime’ it states, “we will take action to enforce tenancy conditions and refer victims to relevant support agencies, while the Police investigate the criminal behaviour and bring charges against the perpetrator”.
The policy states that where residents object to the enforcement action the landlord has taken, they have the right to appeal. It explains that appeals are undertaken, “by making a complaint via the Clarion Complaints procedure”.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a two stage complaint process. The version of its policy provided to the Ombudsman for this investigation, did not include response timeframes for either stage. However, paragraph 3.11 of The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, states the following regarding response timeframes:
1. Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – five working days.
2. Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint – if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason
Paragraph 3.12 of The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states, “response times must not exceed those set out above”.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show it met with the resident on 30 April 2021. It is assumed this was at his property. The landlord and resident discussed several matters at the meeting, including the resident’s report of a noise issue from the neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2021, and provided a summary of their meeting. The letter stated that the majority of noise the resident had reported from the neighbour, was considered ‘general living noise’. It advised the resident to keep a record where he felt there was excessive noise. It advised of the role of the local authority in monitoring noise issues. It confirmed that after the meeting, it had spoken to his neighbour.
The landlord’s records show it received a call on 17 May 2021, reporting an incident of violence against the resident, by his neighbour’s boyfriend. It is not clear from the record, who the call was from. The neighbour’s boyfriend had his own residence, and it is assumed he did not hold a tenancy with the landlord.
The landlord’s records state that the resident had sent it video clips on 21 May 2021, that showed the incident of violence. The landlord responded to the resident by email the same day, confirming the clips had been passed to its tenancy specialist team.
The landlord’s records said it received confirmation from the police on 26 May 2021, that the neighbour and her boyfriend had been charged with assault, and possession of cannabis.
The landlord’s records show notes of the contacts it had with the resident through June and July 2021, until the neighbour and her boyfriend’s court hearing.
The landlord’s records state one of these contacts took place on 8 June 2021. The record showed that the resident’s neighbour had called at his property to ask for assistance, which he gave. It showed the resident subsequently called the landlord and said that he, “wants her gone”. The record shows the landlord advised the resident it was awaiting the outcome of the court hearing, before deciding any tenancy action.
The evidence provided to this Service says that the court hearing took place on 29 July 2021. The evidence says that the neighbour’s boyfriend was found guilty of assaulting the resident and released on bail until 23 August 2021. It says the neighbour was found not guilty of assault, but guilty of possession of a small amount of cannabis.
The landlord’s records show the resident called the landlord 30 July 2021. The landlord returned the call the same day, and its records noted the resident was very unhappy with the court hearing verdict.
The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 12 August 2021. The letter summarised the charges and verdict of the court hearing. It stated her responsibilities regarding drugs, and the behaviour of her visitors. It quoted the relevant sections of her tenancy agreement. It confirmed the warning, that it said it had given to her verbally on 6 August 2021. Namely that the incidents that had led to the court hearing were a breach of her tenancy. It warned of the consequences of any further incidents of ASB, or breaches of her tenancy agreement.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 August 2021. It confirmed a tenancy warning had been served to his neighbour. It advised the ASB case would now be closed, but it would continue to monitor his neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord’s records show it also attempted to call the resident the same day, and left a voicemail.
The resident contacted this Service on 17 August 2021. He explained his dissatisfaction, that the events detailed above had only resulted in a warning letter to his neighbour. This Service advised him to raise a formal complaint with the landlord.
The resident emailed his complaint to the landlord on 17 August 2021. The key points were:
1. He described the incident of violence, and his dissatisfaction with the verdict of the court hearing.
2. He complained about the subsequent lack of contact he had received from the landlord.
3. He stated his belief that the matter warranted more than a warning from the landlord to his neighbour.
4. He explained the mental health conditions he suffered with, and said that they had been worsened by the neighbour only receiving a warning from the landlord.
The landlords records show that the neighbour’s boyfriend was sentenced on 23 August 2021. This included a community order to wear a tag until 15 November 2021. It also included a restraining order not to approach or communicate with the resident. The restraining order was to remain in place until 22 August 2023.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response letter to the resident on 20 September 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. It referred to a further discussion with the resident held on 6 September 2021. It said it understood that the resolution the resident was seeking, was for his neighbour’s boyfriend not to be allowed to enter the building. The landlord’s key findings were:
1. It had been in regular contact with the resident. It listed the seven contacts it had made or attempted, from June 2021 until it wrote to him 12 August 2021.
2. It had received no further reports of incidents or ASB from the resident. It asked the resident to contact the landlord if any occurred.
3. It referred to the restraining order given to the neighbour’s boyfriend, preventing him from approaching the resident. It asked the resident to contact the police if this was breached.
4. It had been unable to find any service failing in its handling of the matter.
The landlord has subsequently told the Ombudsman that the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of its process, in September 2021. This Service has not seen the details, or any further evidence of the escalation request.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported an incident of loud music from his neighbour on 8 October 2021. The notes state that the resident advised, “his neighbour did turn the music down on that occasion”.
The notes refer to further a further discussion with the resident on 18 October 2021. The notes said it reminded the resident of its previous discussion, and letter, regarding general household noise. It highlighted that it had not received any associated reports from any other households. It said it advised again of the local authority’s role. The notes also stated that the resident had mentioned that he had already taken his complaint to stage two.
The landlord called the resident on 16 November 2021, and discussed his stage two complaint with him.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2021. It confirmed his complaint had been escalated to stage two. It said it would aim to provide a written response by 14 December 2021.
The landlord sent its stage two complaint response letter to the resident on 8 December 2021. The letter summarised the landlord’s understanding of the complaint, with reference to its discussion with the resident on 16 November 2021. It said it understood the resolution the resident was seeking, was for his neighbour to be moved to another property.
The key points of the landlord’s stage two complaint response were as follows:
1. It understood the resident may be feeling anxious about the situation again, as the period the neighbour’s boyfriend had been tagged, had now ended.
2. However, further legal action against the neighbour’s boyfriend would not be proportionate, as there had been no further reports of incidents, and the restraining order was still in place.
3. It had discussed with him his recent report of a noise issue. It had explained it was not severe enough to warrant further action, but had agreed it would continue to monitor it.
4. It encouraged his engagement with its staff. It understood his feelings about keeping diary reports and notes, but stressed the need for evidence for it to take action.
5. It could not force people to move unless there was a court order for eviction.
6. It provide a link to its ASB policy, and suggested it may help clarify which issues a landlord can deal with, and which are issues for the police.
7. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided this Service with evidence relating to the resident’s reports of ASB issues, that occurred after the landlord’s complaint process had concluded. As such, this information has been reviewed, but does not form part of the assessment.
The Ombudsman understands the resident’s tenancy was ended on 19 June 2022, and that he no longer holds a tenancy with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the ASB case

In cases concerning ASB, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to ascertain whether the ASB occurred. Rather, it is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB; whether its response was in accordance with its policy, and whether it was appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
It is also not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the verdict of the court hearing. The Ombudsman does acknowledge the shock and dissatisfaction, the resident has described himself as feeling at the verdict. The Ombudsman also recognises that the impact of this, and the overall matter, would have been worsened by the mental health issues the resident has described.
The landlord received the report of the incident of violence on 17 May 2021 and had contact with the resident 21 May 2021. It received confirmation from the police on 26 May 2021, that the neighbour and her boyfriend had been charged with assaulting the resident. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered, or offered, to refer the resident to a relevant support agency, as was stated in its policy. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to make, or attempt to make, regular contact with the resident over the course of June and July 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord and expressed his wish for his neighbour to be moved, on 8 June 2021. The Ombudsman understands why the resident would have felt that way in the circumstances. The landlord’s policy states it will use evidence the police provides, such as details of criminal convictions, to take enforcement action where appropriate. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise it would await the outcome of the court hearing, as the verdict would inform its actions to address the issue.
The court hearing was 29 July 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns with him on 30 July 2021, when the resident expressed his intense dissatisfaction with the verdict. As explained above, the Ombudsman does not assess the court’s verdict.
The resident had told the landlord his wish for his neighbour to be moved. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will consider a range of actions, which included tenancy warning letters. It also states it may seek eviction where it is reasonable and proportionate, and the evidence is sufficient and robust enough for a successful possession action. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the court hearing verdict and available evidence, in deciding what tenancy enforcement action it should take against the neighbour. It was reasonable for the landlord to verbally warn the resident’s neighbour on 6 August 2021, and follow this up with a formal breach of tenancy warning letter, on 12 August 2021.
The resident has described his dissatisfaction, and belief, that the warning letter to his neighbour was insufficient. It is not clear from the evidence, whether the resident expressed this dissatisfaction directly to the landlord, between him receiving the landlord’s letter on 12 August 2021, and him contacting this Service on 17 August 2021. Had he done so, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to register the matter as a complaint, in line with the ‘right to appeal’ section of its ASB policy. In any event, this Service advised the resident to register his complaint with the landlord on 17 August 2021, which he did the same day.
This Service would like to have seen evidence that the landlord had referred, or at least offered to refer the resident, to relevant support agencies in line with what is stated in its policy (detailed above in paragraph 10). Otherwise, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and issuance of the warning letter to the neighbour, was proportionate to the circumstances, and in line with its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaint policy did not specify response timeframes. Nevertheless, the landlord would have been expected to comply with the timeframes stated in The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, detailed in paragraph 12 above. The Ombudsman understands the landlord has since updated its policy to include those timeframes.
The resident raised his complaint, after standard business hours, on 17 August 2021. He specifically asked to be sent a written response within 10 working days, which is in line with the requirements of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. This meant the landlord should have sent its response on, or before, 31 August 2021.
It was not reasonable that the landlord did not send its stage one complaint response until 20 September 2021, 14 working days after the expected response timeframe. It was also not appropriate that the stage one response referred to having received the resident’s complaint on 31 August 2021, when it had in fact received it on 17 August 2021.
This Service has not seen any details relating to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process. This is indicative of poor record keeping, and can negatively impact a landlord’s ability to handle complaints in a timely and effective manner. The Ombudsman has made a recommendation with regard to this.
However, it is not disputed that the resident’s escalation request was made in late September 2021. It was not reasonable that the landlord then took until 17 November 2021 to formally acknowledge the escalation request.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response was sent 8 December 2021. This showed it again failed to adhere to the timeframes of The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which stated the response should have been sent, no more than 20 working days after the resident requested the escalation to stage two. For this reason it was not reasonable that the response was sent between 49 and 58 working days, after the resident’s request (dependent on when in late September 2021 the request was made).
It was appropriate that the landlord discussed the matter with the resident, to ensure it understood the outcomes he was seeking, ahead of issuing both its stage one and stage two complaint letters. It was also appropriate for the landlord’s complaint response letters, to respond to the points the resident had raised, and state the landlord’s position with regards to the outcomes he was seeking.
However, the landlord’s records showed that some discussions with the resident over the course of the matter, had proved challenging. Its records indicated it had, at various stages, not been possible for the landlord to offer verbal advice to the resident, or to verbally explain the reasoning behind the actions it had taken.
It is the view of this Service that these circumstances placed even greater importance on the handling of the resident’s complaint. The complaint response letters represented an opportunity for the landlord to explain the reasoning behind its actions, in a way it had been unable to in direct discussion with the resident. Had the complaint been handled in a timely manner, it also represented an opportunity to offer assurance to the resident, and the potential to propose mediation or victim support services.
The landlord acknowledged the failure of service in its handling of the resident’s complaint, when it provided its evidence to The Ombudsman. It suggested a compensation payment to the resident was appropriate.
The significant delays at each stage of the process prolonged the complaint unnecessarily, and negatively impacted the landlord’s ability to handle it effectively. The landlord’s failure to handle the complaint in a timely and effective manner, would have added to the distress the resident was experiencing. It is the view of the Ombudsman, that this represented maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

ASB

This Service recognises how distressing the assault would have been for the resident, particularly in light of his mental health issues. Nevertheless, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the tenancy enforcement action taken by the landlord, was proportionate to the evidence, and in line with its policy.

Complaint

The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health issues, and the likelihood that they would make the overall matter even more distressing for him. As such, the failure to handle his complaint in a timely and effective manner, will have caused the resident additional undue distress, and was a serious failure of service.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. pays the resident £200 for the delays and distress caused to him by the service failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint;
2. provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

The landlord should confirm compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord review the effectiveness of its record keeping, with particular regard to each stage of its complaint process, ASB case actions, and resident vulnerabilities.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.