Consultation is open on our Business Plan 2025-26 and 5-year Corporate Strategy and we want to hear from you about our plans to deliver an efficient and effective Ombudsman.

Take part today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202408018)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408018

Clarion Housing Association Limited

2 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Communal lighting repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a flat in a block. The landlord reported it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident reported a broken light in the communal hallway on 16 October 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 November 2023 and asked the landlord to consider him for a transfer to a different property. He said he was unhappy that it still had not fixed the communal light. He also said he was experiencing ASB from his neighbour which took the form of “threats”, the smell of drugs, and loud music playing “night and day”.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 November 2023 advising him the ASB case was closed and said the “threshold” for investigation was “not met”. It attended to the repair to the communal lighting on 28 November 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 December 2023 and said it had only fixed one of the lights, and the light outside his property was still not working. He reported that his neighbour recently made “threats” because the resident had “upset him”. He asked for the landlord’s support in moving to an alternative property.
  4. The resident provided the landlord a crime reference number for a report of vandalism to his car on 14 December 2023. The resident provided information about alleged ASB on 22 December 2023. He reported he was concerned his neighbour had planned to attack him in the corridor where the light was not working. He said he decided to stay in a hotel for 3 nights. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 26 December 2023 informing him it had closed the ASB case, as the threshold for further investigation was not met.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 January 2024. He said he was unhappy with its handling of his reports o ASB, and the time taken to fix the communal lighting. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint on 8 February 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it had only had 1 report of ASB that related to a party, but it incorrectly categorised the case, and closed it. It gave a history of the lighting repair, and apologised that the resident had to wait “so long” for it to repair the light. It said it had booked a repair for 15 February 2023. It offered the resident £50 in compensation for its handling of the ASB reports, and £50 for complaint handling delays.
  6. The landlord completed the communal lighting repair on 15 February 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2024, and asked his complaint to go to stage 2 of its procedure. He raised a concern his neighbour continued to make threats, and had now placed CCTV in the communal hallway.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £400 for its handling of the ASB case, £210 for the repair delays, and £50 for complaint handling delays at stage 2. It also restated its £100 offer of compensation made at stage 1. It gave a history of the ASB case, apologised, and said it should have opened a new ASB case at stage 1, rather than asking him to get in touch. It gave a history of the lighting repair, and apologised for the inconvenience caused.

Events after the complaint

  1. The landlord opened an ASB case on 22 April 2024, and met with the resident to complete an action plan on 30 April 2024. During June 2024, the resident provided diary sheets and reported 7 incidents of noise disturbance from his neighbour, and the “smell of drugs” from his property.
  2. The landlord closed the ASB case in August 2024. It set out the actions it had taken to investigate the case, and said it was unable to obtain “independent corroborating evidence” of his allegations.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 19 September 2024 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord had shown a “lack of judgement” when deciding to close his ASB case, and there was “no evidence” it had investigated his concerns. He said he was unhappy about the communal lighting repair. He raised a concern that the landlord’s approach amounted to “discrimination” because it had fixed the light immediately when it was reported by a female resident, in 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case, and whether there were any failings that caused the resident a detriment.
  2. Throughout his complaint, the resident said that the ASB was impacting on his physical and mental health, and the landlord’s handling of the matter increased the impact. He also raised a concern about a loss of earnings, stating he had to leave his job due to the ASB. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence.
  3. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance (if it has it), or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. The Ombudsman consider any general distress and/or inconvenience caused by errors by a landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health. The resident may also wish to seek independent advice on making a claim for loss of earnings if he wishes to pursue this matter further.
  4. When the resident made his complaint about the communal lighting repair, he expressed a concern the landlord had discriminated against him based on the fact he was a man. He said a female resident had made a similar complaint in 2022, and the landlord had agreed to keep the lights on permanently over the winter. While the serious nature of this allegation is acknowledged, whether the landlord committed discrimination is a complaint which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. As such it is not within the remit of this investigation to consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. He may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this matter further. However, we have considered the landlord’s general handling of the lighting repair and whether it responded to this reasonably in line with its relevant policies and procedures and industry best practice.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 April 2024. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord took any substantive action in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB, until it opened a case after it issued its stage 2 response. We have therefore determined that it is reasonable in the circumstances to increase the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.

ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it works in partnership with “internal and external” agencies, including the police, to tackle ASB. The policy states that ASB cases related to noise will be investigated within 5 working days if a threshold of 5 incidents within 28 days is met.
  2. The landlord’s management transfer policy states that it will consider residents for a transfer when they are experiencing “serious antisocial behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk”. The policy states that it will need confirmation from the police, in writing, that there is a “serious risk” to the resident.
  3. The Government’s ‘Putting Victims First’ guidance states that reported incidents of ASB should be “risk assessed at the earliest opportunity” to ensure an appropriate response. The Government’s ASB guidance for frontline professionals states that when an ASB case needs further actions, an action plan should be completed, and shared with the complainant.
  4. The landlord has supplied no evidence to indicate that it completed a risk assessment with the resident when he first reported ASB. Nor did it do so when it opened a case in April 2024. Considering the resident had reported his neighbour made “threats”, it is concerning the landlord did not risk assess the situation. The landlord also told this Service, in September 2024, that it had no recorded vulnerability for the resident, but also had not asked him about any vulnerabilities. Again, the lack of risk assessment means the landlord missed an opportunity to assess risk in relation to the any vulnerabilities the resident had. It was therefore unable to ensure it was taking his particular circumstances into account when providing a service.
  5. The resident first reported concerns about ASB in November 2023. There is no evidence to indicate the landlord opened an ASB case at that time which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the situation with his neighbour. The lack of action on the part of the landlord may reasonably have increased the distress he experienced.
  6. The landlord’s letter of 27 November 2023 was dismissive of the resident’s reports of ASB. It closed the case citing the “threshold” for investigation was “not met”. It is worth noting that we do not seek to make a determination on whether the “threats” were occurring, or not. It is also noted the landlord’s policy threshold for noise reports was not met. However, the resident reported he had received “threats” from his neighbour. To therefore close the case without an appropriate investigation was unreasonable. The landlord did not give the resident’s reports reasonable consideration, and provided no reassurance it was taking his concerns seriously. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident also provided the landlord with a crime reference number in relation to alleged vandalism to his car, in December 2023. We have seen no evidence that the landlord contacted the police at that time, or reopened the ASB case. This was a failure to appropriately apply its ASB policy, which increased the detriment the resident experienced. It is evident the resident believed his neighbour was responsible for the vandalism. Again, it is not possible to corroborate this claim. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have investigated this further at the time. That it did not, is evidence it failed to apply its ASB policy, and did not give his reports the appropriate consideration.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 8 February 2024, was dismissive of the resident’s reports of ASB. It also gave an inaccurate representation of what the resident reported. The response set out that it had only received “1 report” of ASB up to that point. The evidence we have seen shows the resident made the following reports in the period leading up to the stage 1 complaint:
    1. The initial report of ASB on 22 November 2023.
    2. A letter raising his concerns again on 4 December 2023.
    3. A letter in which he provided a crime reference number on 14 December 2023.
    4. A letter dated 2 January 2024, that described an alleged incident of ASB where the neighbour broke the light, and the resident had to sneak up to his property.
  9. Considering the above, the landlord’s comment that the resident only made 1 report was inaccurate, and is evidence the landlord’s complaint response was dismissive and lacked the appropriate thoroughness. Its comment that if it had correctly categorised the ASB as “drug use” it would have investigated was also inappropriate. This caused a further inconvenience to the resident.
  10. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord outlined its position on the resident’s transfer request, prior to its stage 1 response. It is noted that its transfer policy does not give a timeframe for a response. However, that it did not respond for 3 months amounts to an unreasonable delay. That it said it would meet with the resident to support him with an application to sheltered housing was appropriate in the circumstances. This went some way to putting right its earlier silence on the matter.
  11. It is noted the landlord was evidently of the view the resident’s circumstances did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. However, that the landlord did not give an explicit explanation in relation to the resident’s transfer request was inappropriate, particularly considering he had asked to be moved on grounds of risk to his safety.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 2 April 2024, gave a more detailed history of its handling of the ASB case. This went some way to putting right the failings of its stage 1 response. It explained the case was closed automatically by its system, and this was an error. While we welcome the transparency of its response, that this error occurred is concerning from a knowledge and information management point of view. That an ASB case could be automatically closed when a resident has referenced threats in their initial report is concerning. The landlord must review its handling of the case in order identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on the resident’s concern that his neighbour had put a camera up without permission. While it is noted it acknowledged the resident had raised this as part of his complaint, it did not set out what it had done/would do to investigate the issue. This was unreasonable and caused the resident an inconvenience, as the landlord did not address something raised in his complaint.
  14. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also set out that it should have opened a case rather than put the onus on the resident. To acknowledge this failing was also appropriate, and went some way to putting right the failings of its stage 1 response. However, the landlord did not open an ASB case for another 15 working days. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its ASB policy, and a further failing that inconvenienced the resident.
  15. When the landlord opened the ASB case, it completed an action plan with the resident, conducted investigations with neighbours, contacted the police, and the local authority environment health team. These actions were in line with the approach set out in its ASB policy and appropriate in the circumstances. That these actions took place 5 months after the resident first reported ASB amounts to an unreasonable delay. The delay increased the detriment experienced by the resident. He was inconvenienced by the need to raise the issue multiple times, as well the need to raise a complaint before the landlord took appropriate action.
  16. It is noted that the landlord closed the case in August 2024, as it did not have evidence to take further action. The evidence shows the landlord set out what investigations it had done, and advised the resident about next steps he could take in relation to the noise disturbance. Again, the landlord did not set out its position on the CCTV, which was a further failing. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact he was left not knowing what actions the landlord had taken in relation to an ongoing concern.
  17. It is noted the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to close the ASB case. The landlord needed evidence in order to progress with an ASB case, and encouraged the resident to engage with the local authority environment health team, if he was still experiencing a noise disturbance. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident reported further incidents of threats from his neighbour. While the delay in progressing with the ASB case was unreasonable, when the landlord did open a case the actions it took were reasonable in the circumstances.
  18. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 is appropriate to put things right for the resident. The guidance states that a finding of maladministration is appropriate when there is a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord acknowledged failings and/or made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  19. The landlord accepted its handling of the ASB case was poor and offered the resident a total of £400 for its handling of the matter. At the time of its offer, it had still not opened an ASB case, and there was a further delay in investigating the resident’s concerns. In line with the approach set out in our remedies guidance, we have determined a further payment of £150 would put things right for the resident in this case.

Communal lighting repairs

  1. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Lighting, or lack thereof, is considered a potential hazard under the HHSRS.
  2.  The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that non emergency repairs should “always” be completed within 28 calendar days.
  3. The records show that the landlord was on notice about repairs to the communal lighting from 16 October 2023. The evidence shows it did not attend to the repair until 28 November 2023. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy, and a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident reported a potential hazard relating to a lack of lighting in the communal hallway. That it did not attend to the repair with more urgency is concerning. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to raise the repair on 2 occasions before it attended.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 8 February 2024, gave a history of the repair, and apologised for its handling of the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and evidence it had appropriately investigated and sought to learn from the outcomes of its handling of the matter. However, that it did not seek to offer redress for its admitted failings was inappropriate, as it failed to try and put things right for the resident.
  5. The communal lighting was fixed on 15 February 2024, 4 months after the resident first reported the issue. This was an unreasonable delay. We welcome the fact the landlord revisited its offer of compensation in its stage 2 complaint response, of 2 April 2024. This was appropriate considering at the time of its original offer of compensation the matter was outstanding.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised and offered redress for its handling of the communal lighting repairs. We welcome the landlord’s effort to try and put right its failings in its handling of the repair. However, the landlord’s complaint response did not consider the full detriment experienced by the resident, as it did not make an offer of redress for distress. While appropriate to offer compensation for the delay, missed appointments, and inconvenience, the resident was evidently distressed about the matter. The resident had reported feeling unsafe due to the lack of lighting and his concerns about “threats” his neighbour had made. The delay in completing the lighting repair contributed to the distress he experienced.
  7. As set out above, we do not seek to make a determination on whether threats were made, or not. However, it is clear the resident was concerned about safety, and felt at risk from his neighbour. That the landlord did have due consideration for this when it assessed its handling of the lighting repair was inappropriate.
  8. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the communal lighting repairs. The landlord’s offer of £210 for its handling of the communal lighting repair did not fully put things right for the resident. In line with the approach set out in our remedies guidance above, we have determined a further £100 would put things right for the resident, bringing the total compensation to £310 for this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and the lighting repair on 22 November 2023. That the landlord did not open a complaint at that time was inappropriate. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint. That it did not open a complaint investigation at that time is evidence the landlord operated an unfair and hard to access complaints process. This inconvenienced the resident, and he experienced further time and trouble in needing to raise his complaint again in January 2024.
  3. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint, on 15 January 2024, it said it would “make contact” in 20 working days once the complaint was allocated for investigation. This approach was unreasonable, and not compliant with its own complaints policy or the Code. This is further evidence the landlord operated a protracted complaint process, and the resident was inconvenienced by the delay.
  4. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response 21 working days after it was made, on 8 February 2024. While not an excessive delay, it did not apologise for the delay in its response, which was inappropriate. We note it offered compensation for the delay in sending its response, which was appropriate. However, it failed to acknowledge he had first expressed dissatisfaction in November 2023, and did not show appropriate learning about the complaint handling delays and what it would do to prevent similar delays in the future. The resident experienced an inconvenience of a delayed complaint response without appropriate recognition, or learning.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 31 working days after it was made. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay, and offered redress to the resident. However, it failed to show appropriate learning about the delay, simply citing “high levels of customer contact”. This was inappropriate and the landlord failed to set out what it would do to prevent similar delays happening again.
  6. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. In conjunction with our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident. We have determined a further £75 would put right things right for the resident in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of communal lighting repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £1,035 in compensation. Its offer of £710 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £550 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
      2. £310 in recognition of the distress caused by errors in its handling of the resident’s reports of communal lighting repairs.
      3. £175 in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident to outline its position on his neighbour’s CCTV camera. It must set out the actions it has taken to investigate, and the findings of its investigation.
  2. Within 10 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of the resident’s ASB case. The review should consider the failings identified in this report, and how it will prevent similar failings happening again. The outcome of the review must be shared with the resident, and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord uses the complaint handling failings identified in this report to inform its future programmes for complaint handling training.