Clarion Housing Association Limited (202203294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203294

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of and response to:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. the resident’s installation of CCTV cameras.
3. the resident’s management transfer application.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom first floor flat.
On 7 June 2021 the landlord opened an ASB case following reports of threats and verbal abuse toward the resident from her neighbour. In addition, it contacted the police to obtain further information. The landlord also wrote a warning letter to the neighbour on 12 June 2021 and offered the option of mediation, which the resident declined.
On 7 January 2022 the resident reported her neighbour shouting and swearing at her. In response, the landlord requested a crime reference number from the resident. It was unsuccessful in contacting the resident and subsequently closed the case. On 10 May 2022, the resident reported criminal damage to her garden furniture and front door. The landlord acknowledged this and issued an action plan on 17 May 2022. The resident made a further report on 18 May 2022 of ‘threats to kill’ from her neighbour. In response, the landlord contacted the police to obtain more information.
On 18 May 2022 following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to raise a complaint and respond within 10 working days about its handling of reports of ASB and the housing officer’s conduct concerning the resident’s CCTV. The resident wanted the landlord to act on her reports of ASB, and to investigate the housing officer’s conduct as well as managed move. On 23 May 2022 the landlord asked the resident to remove the CCTV from her property or request retrospective permission.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. In summary, it said that it had acted in line with its ASB policy and procedure and within its published service level agreements. In respect of the CCTV, it said that following a complaint from her neighbour it had visited her with the police to ascertain if she had requested permission for the CCTV and that a tenancy breach case was open in respect of this. It explained that her case did not meet the criteria for a managed move and offered her advice on other housing options.
On 5 October 2022 following contact from the police the landlord’s staff member submitted an internal management transfer request. In November 2022 the landlord subsequently requested further information from the police and asked if they believed the resident was at serious risk of harm. They concluded that they did not believe she was at an immediate risk of harm and added that they had not received any further reports from the resident and that all their criminal investigations were closed. On 30 November 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it was declining her management transfer request.
On 18 January 2023 following contact from the resident this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint and respond within 20 working days. In March 2023 the landlord carried out a joint visit with police on 2 occasions to discuss the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord also agreed that the CCTV at the front of her property could remain but that she would need to remove the cameras from her lounge and bedroom window. The landlord also agreed to the resident’s suggestion of fencing off the garden between her and her neighbour. The landlord subsequently sent a warning letter to both the resident and her neighbour and closed the case.
On 5 April 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It reiterated parts of it stage 1 response and in addition, it said:
1. In mid-June 2022 it experienced a cyber-incident that resulted in the loss of all open ASB cases, and it was unable to retrieve hers and was therefore unable to take any further action on her case until 6 September 2022.
2. It received an email from the police about the ongoing situation between the resident and her neighbour and subsequently drafted a management transfer request, which was declined.
3. It contacted the police to see if they could provide any further supporting information. The police confirmed that they did not believe the resident was at significant risk of harm. Overall, it identified no service failings concerning the resident’s request for a managed move.
4. Joint visits with the police were scheduled for January 2023 but neither took place due to no access and the resident being ill. However, it managed to speak with the resident’s neighbour who made counter-allegations against her.
5. As a solution it was agreed that a fence be erected along the rear boundary between the 2 gardens.
6. It apologised that there were delays in the management of her case and further delays from September 2022 in arranging a joint visit with the police.
7. That the CCTV cameras at the main front and rear were to be removed with immediate effect but the one by the front door could remain if it did not monitor any part of her neighbour’s property.
8. It offered £400 compensation, comprised of £250 for the time taken to resolve, failure in policy and procedure, repeat visits to resolve the issue and the resident needing to chase and £150 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint on 3 May 2023. She said that the landlord had failed to inform her when it was going to install the new fence and gate and there had been a lack of communication from it in this respect. She added that she suffered a mental breakdown and lost her job due to the ASB. In addition, she was unhappy that the compensation offered had been applied to her rent account.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she raised concerns that the reported ASB had affected her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statement. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling and response to reports of ASB

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. Put things right.

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
When assessing complaints about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the landlord has adequately investigated the reported issues and taken appropriate and proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
In this case, the landlord has provided this Service with limited evidence from June 2021 up to September 2022. This is likely due to the landlord’s cyber security incident that happened in June 2022 which resulted in a loss of all open ASB cases at that time. In view of this, this service has mostly relied on what the landlord said in its formal complaint responses. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the resident disputes the accuracy of these responses.
The landlord’s ASB policy states where ASB is the result of criminal activity it would expect residents to report criminal behaviour to the police. It states that it would expect the police and other statutory agencies to take action where they have sufficient evidence to do so. It adds that it recognises the importance of working collaboratively with the police and local authorities to support and encourage their role in enforcing the law. It will also use the evidence they provide (such as details of calls or a criminal conviction) together with evidence it may obtain to take enforcement action where appropriate.
In June 2021 the resident reported verbal abuse and threats from her neighbour. The landlord acted appropriately by trying to contact the resident to discuss her concerns. Its internal records indicated that it visited her neighbour shortly afterward to discuss the report. In addition, it contacted the police to obtain further information and theyadvised that words of advice were given,and that the resident did not wish to pursue any further action. It stage 1 response stated that mediation was subsequently offered and refused, and the case was closed. While there is no evidence to reconcile its offer of mediation, the resident did not dispute this.Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy in respect of this report.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that in January 2022 the resident reported an incident of shouting and swearing towards her by her neighbour. It stated that it contacted the resident to request a crime reference number and chased this up via text message on 18 January 2022. It also sent a follow-up letter requesting contact within 7 days. Having not received contact from the resident it subsequently closed the case. While again there is limited evidence to confirm these actions, this Service has seen evidence of a letter to the resident dated 19 January 2022 asking her to contact it within 7 days to discuss the matter. Overall, it appears that the landlord made reasonable efforts to contact the resident. Given that it was unable to do so, it was appropriate for it to close the case.
The landlord’s stage 1 response also stated that on 10 May 2022 the resident reported criminal damage to her garden furniture and front door. This Service has seen a letter of acknowledgement and action plan sent to the resident on 17 May 2022 in respect of this report. The plan indicated that it provided diary sheets for her to complete and return by 7 June 2022. It also requested her CCTV footage of the incident and stated that it would conduct enquiries with neighbours.
On 18 May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she had been told by her neighbours that another neighbour had shouted that they were going to kill her. The landlord contacted the resident the same day but was unable to get hold of her. It subsequently wrote to her the following day asking her to contact it within 7 days. Having not received any further contact from the resident it closed the case. In addition, it contacted the police to establish what action they were taking. The landlord responded promptly to this report and made reasonable efforts to contact the resident. However, while it was appropriate and in line with its policy to contact the police, it is unclear if the landlord followed this up with them and whether it canvassed for witnesses as it agreed it would in its action plan.
Furthermore, there was evidence that in September 2022 the police and the resident informed the landlord of at least 2 further incidents of ASB, yet no meaningful action was taken in response until January 2023 when the landlord arranged a joint visit with the police. This was an unacceptable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that that her concerns were being ignored. However, the landlord did acknowledge these failings in its final response and offered £250 compensation.
In addition, following joint visits with the police in March 2023 the landlord at the resident’s request agreed to install fencing to separate her and her neighbour’s garden as well as provide each of them with their own shed. Its records indicated that this work was completed in June 2023. Following this work the landlord, having received counter allegations sent a ‘verbal warning letter’ to the resident and her neighbour. The landlord’s actions demonstrated a fair and flexible approach to the resident’s concerns, and it took a collaborative approach, in line with its policy by working with the police in this case. However recent records show that the landlord is due to repair the fence, yet it is unclear if it has done so, therefore a recommendation has been made below in respect of this.
While this Service has identified failures in the landlord’s handling and response to the resident’s reports of ASB, it is considered that the redress offered in the landlord’s final response was broadly in line with this service’s guidance for failures that have adversely affected the resident. In view of this, the Ombudsman has concluded that this offer was adequate in ‘putting things right’ for the resident and a finding of reasonable redress has been made in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
Finally, while it is noted that in the resident’s complaint to this Service, she was unhappy that the compensation was applied to her rent account, the landlord’s compensation policy does allow for this. However, the blanket implementation of such a policy risks a resident who has been awarded compensation for direct financial loss or out-of-pocket expenses not directly receiving that sum to settle their financial outlay. Landlords should consider the impact such a policy may have on an individual resident or whether the sum to be offset is in dispute. In this case, the landlord did not award the amount for financial loss, however, it should consider reviewing this ‘blanket’ policy.

Installation of CCTV cameras

The landlord’s CCTV policy states where it receives complaints about inappropriate use of CCTV that amount to harassment or ASB, it will investigate this, which may include asking residents to allow it access to check that the cameras do not infringe the privacy of others. It adds that where it considers necessary, it will ask the resident to remove or reposition the cameras as appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that it visited the resident on 18 May 2022 following a complaint it received about her CCTV. The response states that she was advised by Environmental Health (EH) to install the CCTV. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident on 23 May 2022 asking her to remove the CCTV or request retrospective permission within 14 days. The landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy by investigating her CCTV and providing her with the opportunity to request permission. Its records also suggested that it checked with EH about the resident’s claims. Given the resident’s assertions, this was an appropriate action to take.
There is no evidence of the landlord taking any further action in respect of the CCTV until March 2023, when the landlord carried out a joint visit with the police. Its records showed that it assessed the location of the resident’s cameras and found there were 3 located by her front door that pointed directly into her garden and another 2 of which pointed into her neighbour’s garden. It subsequently agreed that she could keep the 3 by her front door so long as they remained in this position and told her to remove the other 2. Its response demonstrated a fair and reasonable approach. Further, it was appropriate for it to assess the position of the cameras and for it to seek the advice of the police in this matter.
Furthermore, the landlord was entitled to request the removal of the other 2 cameras. This is because these cameras were likely infringing on the privacy of others, and it therefore demonstrated that it was acting in line with its policy. The landlord also acted appropriately by confirming its decision in writing. While there was a delay in the landlord reassessing the CCTV there is no evidence that this delay caused any adverse impact to the resident. Overall, the landlord’s actions were fair, and it acted within its policy. Moreover, its records showed that the resident was happy with this outcome. In light of this, the Ombudsman has made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s installation of CCTV cameras.

Management transfer application

The landlord’s management transfer policy states it expects to rely on a management transfer in a small number of circumstances where a resident is experiencing ASB or harassment that puts them at risk of serious harm. It adds that a management transfer should only be considered if the police or other specialist professional agency confirms in writing that there is a serious risk of harm or threat to the resident or their family which means it is no longer safe for them to continue living at the property.
In the resident’s initial complaint to this Service in May 2022 she wanted the landlord to provide her with a managed move. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained that her case did not meet the threshold for a move. Its response accurately reflected its policy. Furthermore, it was entitled to conclude that she did not meet the threshold for a managed move, given its previous correspondence with the police. The landlord also acted appropriately by providing her with other options for moving such as applying for a mutual exchange or via its own internal waiting list.
In September 2022 the police contacted the landlord and advised that due to the ongoing reports of ASB it would be in the resident’s best interest for the landlord to find alternative accommodation for her. In response, the landlord asked the police to confirm if the resident was at serious risk of harm and asked them to complete its management transfer support form. The police responded saying that based on the information available they could not say that there was an immediate risk of harm to the resident and added that there had been no further reports and that all its criminal investigations were closed. The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident declining a managed move.
Overall, the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policy. It accurately explained its management transfer criteria and provided the resident with alternative options for moving. Further, it attempted to assist her with a managed move by asking the police if they felt she was at serious risk of harm. Following the police response, the landlord was entitled to decline the request, in line with its policy. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of and response to the resident’s management transfer application.
It is noted that in February 2024 the landlord agreed that if the resident could provide ‘strong’ supporting evidence of the deterioration of her mental health it would further consider a managed move. A recommendation has been made below in respect of this.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. In doing so, this Service notes that it took the landlord almost 3 months to respond to the resident at stage 2. This was not in line with the landlord’s interim complaints policy at the time which stated that at stage 2, the landlord will aim to respond within 40 working days. This was an avoidable delay that would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
While the landlord’s approach was contrary to its procedure, it did acknowledge this and made an offer of compensation (£150) in recognition of this delay. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £100 – £600 should be considered where there is a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord therefore made an offer which was in accordance with this Service’s guidance and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, proportionately reflected the level of detriment. The landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in putting matters right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its handling of and response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling and response to the resident’s installation of CCTV cameras.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling and response to the resident’s management transfer application.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

The landlord should repair the fencing as agreed if it has not already done so.
The landlord should upon receiving supporting evidence from the resident, consider a managed move for her, in line with its management transfer policy.
The landlord should review its ‘blanket’ policy for offsetting compensation payments.