Clarion Housing Association Limited (202205452)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205452

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 January 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation it offered.

Background

The resident holds a joint assured tenancy with his partner which started in the spring of 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association.
Around September 2021, the resident started to report that his neighbour (who will now be referred to as the perpetrator for the purposes of this report) was causing antisocial behaviour (ASB). Between October 2021 and 3 March 2022 the resident and landlord continued to communicate about the ASB which included:
1. The resident reported the perpetrator had scratched a neighbour’s car, was banging on the ceiling, filming his family, smoking drugs, verbally abusing him, and letting their dog loose.
2. The landlord’s ASB team produced an action plan and asked the resident to complete incident diaries, report drug use to the police, and report the noise nuisance to environmental health.
3. The landlord told the resident there needed to be a significant risk of harm to move him through its management transfer process. As there was not, it could not move him.
4. The police told the landlord that the perpetrator had been charged with criminal damage and was awaiting a court date.
On the 22 March 2022, the resident gave the landlord incident diaries that he had completed which covered the last 6 months. The resident told the landlord that due to the noise, his child was no longer sleeping in their bedroom. A week later, the resident and his partner reported things were getting worse, they were concerned the perpetrator had mental health issues and may become physical with them. On 8 April 2022, the landlord’s ASB team apologised for the delay in their response due to staff absence. The landlord’s ASB team had assessed the incident diaries and determined that the main issue was noise. It told the resident to contact environmental health who had powers to deal with noise nuisance.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord visited the perpetrator and gave them a verbal warning. It offered both parties mediation which the resident declined. The next day the landlord wrote to the resident advising the perpetrator had made counter allegations. It told the resident he needed to ask for permission for his CCTV and needed to send it pictures of the area the CCTV covered. Throughout the rest of April, the resident continued to report ASB from the perpetrator. The landlord spoke to the perpetrator’s supporting agencies about their dog causing nuisance. The council’s environmental health team told the landlord that it would not install noise recording equipment. The landlord asked environmental health to carry out a noise transference test instead.
At the end of April 2022, the landlord liaised with its independent ASB contractor to review the case. After taking the independent contractor’s advice, it wrote to the resident to set out its position. It said that the incidents had reduced since it had warned the perpetrator about their behaviour. It had reviewed the resident’s incident diaries and reports and considered the ASB to be low risk. The perpetrator was reacting to noise from the resident’s home which it had warned against. It did not have enough evidence to take further action against the perpetrator. It could not move the resident through its management transfer process. It could not move the perpetrator. It was still waiting for the resident to ask permission for his CCTV.
The resident continued to report ASB from the perpetrator throughout May 2022 and raised a complaint. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 June 2022. It said:
1. The ASB was under investigation. The perpetrator had been given a verbal warning and the case would be reviewed by its independent ASB contractor.
2. It had refused permission for the resident’s CCTV before he completed permission forms. This was because it did not allow CCTV in flats. Other neighbours with CCTV had been asked to remove it.
3. It acknowledged there had been a delay in its responses due to a staff shortage in its ASB team. The resident had been given a new ASB officer and his case had been given priority.
4. It said its lack of communication was a service failure and offered £150 compensation. It would contact the resident within the next 28 days to arrange the payment. It agreed to contact the resident every 14 days until the ASB was resolved.
In June 2022, the landlord suffered a cyber attack which restricted its access to its systems. On 17 June 2022, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. A month later, the landlord asked the resident to provide details of his escalation request as it could not access its systems because of the cyber attack. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 September 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay due to the cyber attack. As it could not access its systems, it had relied on emails and information from the resident and its ASB team to review the case.
2. It had given the perpetrator a verbal warning and the police had also issued them with a warning. The council had taken action against the perpetrator which it could not disclose due to data protection.
3. The landlord had liaised with the police regarding 2 recent incidents where the resident’s car was blocked in, and the perpetrator was reported to have an axe. The police had taken no further action on both incidents.
4. The landlord had reviewed some video evidence the resident had sent but was unable to access other videos.
5. The resident had declined to meet jointly with the council and landlord regarding the ASB. He had asked for all correspondence to be in writing. The landlord had referred the case to environmental health to conduct a noise transference test, but the resident had not confirmed he wanted this to happen. The resident had declined mediation which he should reconsider.
6. There were counter allegations from the perpetrator about noise the resident was making. Due to this, the landlord needed independent evidence to support his allegations. The videos he had sent were not clear as to where the noise was coming from.
7. It could not grant permission for the resident to have CCTV which covered his vehicle as this would cover a public space.
8. It found its ASB case management had been in line with its procedures, and it had worked with the appropriate agencies. It recognised there had been further communication errors on its part and offered a further £250 compensation. It offered another £50 compensation for its delay in issuing its stage 2 response. This brought its total offer of compensation to £450.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s stage 2 response as he believed it had not followed its ASB procedures and its timeline of events was incorrect. On 5 October 2022, the council advised the resident it would be serving a community protection warning (CPW) on him and the perpetrator due to the ASB evidence it had received. The resident continued to contact the landlord and the council about the ASB. He said that the landlord had taken too long to process the compensation it had offered and then told him the incorrect amount.
In November 2022, the landlord and environmental health visited the resident to carry out a noise transference test. The resident declined the test as he said the landlord had not told him about it. In December 2022, the landlord arranged another visit with environmental health to carry out a noise transference test. The resident again declined the test. The landlord told the resident it could not take the ASB allegations regarding noise any further without this test. Over the next 3 months, the resident continued to report that the perpetrator was engaging in ASB.
In June 2023, the landlord’s independent ASB contractor completed their review of the case. The independent ASB contractor felt that the landlord had managed the case well overall, and its compensation offer was fair. The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was unhappy with how the landlord had handled the ASB reports. He was also unhappy with the amount of compensation it had offered. In January 2024, the resident told the Ombudsman that the perpetrator had moved. The resident is seeking a 12 month rent refund as an outcome to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In March 2023, the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord about the perpetrator’s garden, which he said was attracting rodents. The Ombudsman is unable to assess this new complaint as the landlord has not had the opportunity to address it through its internal complaints process. Once the landlord has completed its internal complaints process, the resident can approach the Ombudsman if he is unhappy with the outcome.
The resident has submitted evidence of his correspondence with the council and its environmental health team regarding the ASB case. Although this evidence will inform the report, the Ombudsman cannot assess actions that the council did or did not take in relation to the case. This is because complaints about the council fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.

The landlord’s ASB policy says that it works collaboratively with other agencies. It uses evidence from other agencies as well as its own to take enforcement action where it is appropriate to do so. It may use a variety of interventions including mediation, tenancy support and warnings. It will advise residents to report noise nuisance to environmental health. It will investigate noise nuisance within 5 working days where the same resident has reported multiple incidents within the same week or month.
The resident first raised concerns about the perpetrator’s dog in March 2022. It took the landlord over a month to discuss this concern with the perpetrator and other agencies. The evidence does not show that the landlord updated the resident about this discussion. The resident chased the landlord at least 6 times about the dog issues over the following 7 months. Although the landlord’s complaint responses stated the resident had reported dog nuisance, it did not address the issue. This was unreasonable. It caused frustration for the resident and a lack of confidence in the landlord.
The evidence suggests that dog nuisance is dealt with by the landlord’s neighbourhood officers rather than its ASB team. The division of the ASB management in this case, meant that the issue of dog nuisance did not get fully addressed. The evidence does not show that the landlord’s ASB team and neighbourhood officers worked together to address the dog issue. Where there are multiple ASB issues in a case that span across different teams, the landlord should ensure a joint up response so nothing gets missed. Alternatively, it should consider allocating ASB cases with multiple issues to one team to improve its oversight of and response to a case.
In April 2022, the resident said he had contacted environmental health. Environmental health told the resident they had chased the landlord several times to arrange the noise transference test but had received no response.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s ASB team contacted environmental health about the noise transference test again 5 months after its initial request for the sound test. Although the landlord explained to the resident its lack of response was due to staff sickness, a gap of this length was not reasonable. The landlord should have ensured the resident’s ASB case was covered by another member of staff whilst the allocated officer was on leave. It should consider having plans in place for unexpected staff leave to ensure its casework continues to be managed appropriately and in good time.
The landlord’s CCTV policy says that resident’s must ask for its permission to install CCTV. It says that CCTV must not cover communal areas or other properties. It does not require resident’s to ask for its permission for video doorbells, though if it receives complaints, it may take enforcement action.
In April 2022, the landlord told the resident that he needed to apply for retrospective permission for his CCTV. The resident subsequently chased it for the correct forms to complete. It then told the resident 2 months later in its stage 1 complaint response, that it had declined his request for CCTV before he completed the forms. This was because it did not allow CCTV in flats. It failed to give the resident the correct information at the outset which raised his expectations. It was unreasonable that it took 2 months for it to conclude that it would not allow CCTV.
The landlord’s CCTV policy does not state that it does not allow CCTV in flats. The landlord should clarify its position and amend its policy appropriately.
The landlord told the resident on 14 June 2022 that it would be asking its independent ASB contractor to review his case. Although this was good practice to seek an independent review, the evidence shows that it sent the case to its independent contractor on 15 October 2022. This was a delay of almost 4 months. The landlord told the resident it would take some time to send over all the documents its contractor needed for the review, however it was not reasonable that it took 4 months for it to do so.
The landlord evidenced that it worked jointly with the police, environmental health, and the council to manage the ASB case. In September 2022, it arranged a joint meeting with the council that the resident was invited to. The resident declined to attend the meeting. Although the Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s position was due to his lack of faith in the landlord and other agencies to resolve the ASB, it would have been in his best interest to attend the meeting to agree a way forward.
The landlord attempted to arrange 2 appointments for the sound transference test at the resident’s property. The resident declined the test on the first date as he said he did not receive notification from the landlord. The evidence shows that the landlord sent the resident a letter about this. It cannot be held responsible for issues with the delivery of the letter through the postal service. However, the resident had told the landlord previously that he had not received letters it had sent. The landlord should have considered sending an email to the resident instead.
The resident declined the test on the second date as he felt the landlord had not handled his ASB case appropriately. The resident felt the landlord should have arranged the test 5 months earlier when he had first contacted environmental health. Although the Ombudsman can appreciate the resident’s frustration and lack of trust with the landlord at this point, he limited the actions the landlord was able to take by refusing the sound transference tests.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on: Noise Complaints was published in October 2022. The report says that landlords should consider whether a noise complaint is ASB, or an issue with soundproofing in its properties. The report recommends that landlord’s consider actions to mitigate noise nuisance caused by ineffective soundproofing.
The landlord completed most of its investigation and issued its stage 2 response before the Spotlight report on: Noise complaints. Its actions therefore cannot be measured against the report. However, there is learning that the landlord could take forward for future noise related cases. This includes at the early stages of a case, considering whether the noise is ASB related or an issue with soundproofing. Although the landlord had suggested environmental health conduct a sound transference test, it did not follow this up in good time. Had it done so, it could have better managed the resident’s expectations. This would also have instilled confidence in the resident that it was proactively working with other agencies to seek a resolution.
The evidence shows that the resident and his partner suggested that the perpetrator’s front door may be faulty. If the door was faulty, this could have explained or contributed to the door slamming that the resident reported several times. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord carried out an inspection of the perpetrator’s door. If it was not able to inspect the door, or felt it was not appropriate to do so, it should have explained this to the resident. It had several chances to do this as the resident had asked the landlord to inspect the door on multiple occasions.
The independent ASB contractor issued their review in June 2023. This was around 12 months after the landlord had told the resident about the review. Although the landlord is not responsible for its contractor’s delay, it should have been proactive in chasing them for their response. The resident experienced frustration because of the delay and lack of updates from the landlord about the review.
The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) issues best practice guidance for social landlords. In July 2022, CIH advised that landlords should be using a ‘harm centred’ approach to ASB management. Taking a ‘harm centred’ approach means that landlords should consider both the type of ASB and the impact it has on the resident. Landlords should complete a risk assessment that considers both the type of ASB and impact on the resident to determine risk level. This should then inform any actions the landlord takes in the management of the case.
The landlord determined that the ASB was low risk. It is not clear how the landlord came to this decision. The evidence does not show that it completed a risk assessment with the resident. The resident had told the landlord on several occasions that his partner and child were suffering with anxiety due to the ongoing noise. The resident’s partner had reported being fearful of a physical reaction from the perpetrator. The landlord should have considered the impact on the resident and his family when deciding on further actions. The evidence does not suggest that it signposted the resident for support regarding the anxiety. It would have been best practice to do so.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not say that it conducts risk assessments. If it does not do so already, the landlord should conduct risk assessments when dealing with ASB cases. It should amend its ASB policy to reflect that it carries out risk assessments when dealing with ASB cases.
The landlord evidenced that it had contacted other neighbours about the noise related ASB. Neighbour’s corroborated that the perpetrator was causing noise but also mentioned that noise transference between the flats meant that everyday noises could be heard too. The landlord gave the perpetrator a warning 2 months after speaking with the neighbours. It recognised in its complaint responses that it should have acted more quickly and offered compensation which was reasonable.
The landlord’s management transfer policy says that it can only move residents if there is a risk to life that is confirmed by police. The landlord advised the resident of this when it said it could not move him. It had not received communication from the police to suggest the resident’s life was at risk. Therefore, it acted in line with its policy.
The resident disputed that the landlord took appropriate action against the perpetrator. The landlord gave the perpetrator warnings, worked with other agencies, and offered mediation. The landlord investigated the counter allegations of the perpetrator. Its investigation was also informed by the council’s own ASB case that sought to serve community protection warnings (CPW’s) on both the resident and perpetrator. It waited for the outcome of the perpetrator’s court case in relation to scratching a neighbour’s car before considering further action. It took advice on the management of the case from its independent ASB contractor which it was entitled to do. Overall, this shows the landlord took a considered and reasonable approach when determining what action, it could take against the perpetrator.
On balance, the landlord demonstrated maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour. This was through its failure to address concerns with the perpetrator’s dog and front door. It did not evidence it had carried out risk assessments or considered the impact on the resident and his family when determining the level of risk. It gave the wrong advice regarding CCTV permission. Its delay in sending the information to its independent ASB contractor for a case review was not reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation it offered.

The Ombudsman published a special report on the landlord in October 2022. It recommended that the landlord should produce an action plan to improve the quality, timeliness, and consistency of its complaint responses.
At the time of the issue of the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord was using a 2 stage complaint policy. The policy does not set out any response timeframes. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code says that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. The Code says stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days. These are the timeframes that the landlord’s stage 1 response will be assessed against.
The landlord implemented an interim complaints policy on the 17 June 2022. This was the policy in place at the time the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. The policy says it aims to respond to stage 2 complaint requests within 40 working days.
In a recently determined case, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to confirm when it would reimplement its standard complaints policy. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it will revert to its standard complaint policy by the end of April 2024.
The landlord said that it received the stage 1 request on 25 May 2022. It issued its stage 1 response 12 working days later. This was 2 working days outside of the timeframes in the Code. Although this was a small delay, the landlord should have been adhering to the timeframes of the Code at the time of issuing its response.
When the landlord accepted the escalation request a month after the resident’s request to escalate, it advised it may not be able to respond in time due to the cyber attack. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord’s operations were greatly impacted by the cyber attack in June 2022, however it issued its stage 2 response 71 working days after the resident’s request to escalate. This went against its interim complaint policy by 31 days. This delay was not reasonable and caused distress for the resident who had to chase the landlord for updates. It offered the resident £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident an additional £50 compensation to adequately reflect the length of delay.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the dates the landlord relied on in its complaint responses were incorrect. The resident told the landlord he had not had contact with its ASB officer since February or March 2022. The landlord’s evidence states that a visit was carried out on 3 March 2022 which reflects the resident’s dates. It is clear from the landlord’s evidence that the resident submitted incident diaries on 22 March 2022. The landlord then wrote to the resident with an update on the case around 14 April 2022. Both events were not referenced in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response before the cyber attack, so would have had access to its systems at the time. It should have provided accurate information as part of its stage 1 response. This would have reassured the resident that his complaint had been investigated thoroughly.
The stage 2 complaint response says that the landlord issued the perpetrator with a first verbal warning in June 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord issued a first verbal warning in April 2022. The landlord should have checked its dates were accurate before issuing its response. Failure to do so meant the resident did not have faith in the findings of the landlord’s investigation. However, this did not affect the outcome of its ASB investigation.
The landlord identified a service failure in its communication with the resident regarding the ASB case. It advised this was due to staff sickness and offered £150 compensation. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable for its failure in communication at the time of its stage 1 response.
The landlord identified further failures in its communication with the resident throughout the management of the ASB case. It increased its offer to £250 for these delays which is reasonable.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord did not pay him the compensation it had offered within a reasonable timeframe. He said when the landlord called him to arrange the payment it told him the wrong amount. The stage 1 complaint response said it would contact the resident within 28 days to arrange the payment. Its stage 2 complaint response said it was unable to process payments due to the cyber attack but would contact the resident once it was able to process payments again. The evidence does not show when the landlord paid the compensation or if the landlord told the resident the wrong amount. However, it should have given a timeframe for when it would aim to pay the compensation at stage 2 rather than leaving it open ended. This would have reassured the resident.
The Code says that landlord’s should address all points of a resident’s complaint. Neither of the landlord’s complaint responses addressed the dog issues or the resident’s request to inspect the perpetrators front door. This was a breach of the code and further affected the relationship between it and the resident. It should pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for its failure to address all points of the complaint.
The landlord should also pay an additional £50 for the delay with issuing its independent ASB contractor’s report.
The resident requested a rent refund for 12 months to reflect the failings of the landlord. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be a reasonable amount of compensation. The resident said that the impact of the ASB was that he could not live peacefully in his property for around 18 months, however the evidence showed that the landlord acted appropriately to address the behaviour of the perpetrator. The landlord identified issues with its communication and delays in responding during the ASB case and offered £450 compensation. The Ombudsman has identified that an additional £100 should be paid to reflect the length of delay in the issue of the stage 2 response, the delay in issuing its independent ASB contractors report, and the failure to address all of the resident’s complaint points. This brings the total offer of compensation to £600.
Overall, the landlord demonstrated service failure in its handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation it offered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the amount of compensation it offered.

Orders

The landlord should issue an apology to the resident in writing for the further failures identified in this report. It should set out why the failures happened and what it will do to prevent these failures in the future. It should provide a copy of the apology to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should pay the resident the total amount of £600 compensation comprised of:
1. The £450 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already.
2. £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
3. £50 for recording the incorrect dates in its complaint responses.
4. £50 for the delay in issuing its independent ASB contractor’s report.
If it does not do so already, the landlord should conduct risk assessments when dealing with ASB cases. It should amend its ASB policy to reflect that it carries out risk assessments when dealing with ASB cases. It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman of its amended policy.
The landlord should clarify its position on CCTV in flats and amend its policy appropriately. It should provide evidence to the Ombudsman of its amended policy.
The landlord should provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider training for its staff on complaint handling, specifically in answering all points of the complaint and providing accurate information.
The landlord should consider signposting residents to support services as part of its ASB case management.
The landlord could consider allocating ASB cases with multiple issues to one team to improve its oversight of and response to a case.
The landlord could consider having contingency plans in place for unexpected staff leave. This would ensure its casework continues to be managed appropriately and in good time when there is unexpected staff absence.
The landlord should consider the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight: on Noise complaints Spotlight on: Noise complaints | Housing Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).