Clarion Housing Association Limited — case 202408179

Decision Case ID 202408179 Decision type Investigation Landlord Clarion Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 28 January 2026 Background The resident lives with her 2 adult sons. Her elder son helps her care for her younger son who is disabled. The resident also has health conditions. She complained about various disturbances and noise made by her neighbour. She was concerned this amounted to antisocial behaviour (ASB) and was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports.

The resident’s son often communicated with the landlord on her behalf. For ease, we have referred to them both as the resident within this report. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s: Reports of ASB. Concerns about staff conduct. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The response to reports of ASB The landlord failed to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and regularly update its risk assessments. It also failed to adequately put things right at an earlier stage. The response to concerns about staff conduct The landlord delayed unreasonably in responding to concerns raised about its staff and a potential conflict of interest.

Handling of the complaint The landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered proportionate compensation to put things right. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 25 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 comprising of: £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB.

£50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about staff conduct. This is in addition to the £100 it has already offered for ASB handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. No later than 25 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures.

This is because our finding of reasonable redress was made partly on the basis that this amount was paid. The landlord should consider inspecting the properties to see if anything can be done to reduce noise transference. The landlord should consider updating its ASB policy to include its commitment to create action plans and risk assessments. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 2022 The resident made several reports of noise related ASB from her neighbour.

20 July 2022 The neighbour signed a good neighbour agreement (GNA). January 2023 The police attended following an incident between the resident and the neighbour. June 2023 The resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord opened an ASB case but closed it as no supporting evidence was received. August 2023 The resident made further reports of ASB and wanted the landlord to investigate the other reports she had made. Given the frequency of reports, the landlord provided a response to this on 29 August 2023 and provided the resident with advice about how to make a formal complaint.

December 2023 The resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord opened a case in response to the reports but closed this ASB case in January 2024. This was on the basis that the reports did not meet the threshold for ASB. February 2024 The resident made further reports of ASB. The landlord sent the neighbour a warning letter to advise it was considering legal proceedings. 1 March 2024 The resident raised a formal complaint. She said: She felt the team was not doing enough to protect her wellbeing, because the neighbour was being “abusive and harassing” her.

She had evidence of how she had been treated on tape but felt the landlord was “letting [the neighbour] get away with this”. She felt the tenancy specialist (TS) had not been supportive. She felt discriminated against and said she had heard the neighbour’s relative worked for the landlord. 15 March 2024 The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It noted that the resident had been reporting ASB since July 2022. It confirmed it had: Heard her case at the community multi agency risk assessment conference.

Put the GNA in place, as the neighbour signed it. Offered to take statements, install noise monitoring equipment (NME) and offered mediation which the neighbour had accepted but the resident had not. Discussed rehousing with both parties but noted that the resident was unwilling to consider it. Acted in line with its ASB policy and procedure. It said it would provide additional support to all the parties, explore a potential mutual exchange with the neighbour, continue to monitor the situation and allocate a new TS officer.

It also suggested that the resident approach the local authority to ask for an ASB review if she remained unhappy. 12 April 2024 The resident called the landlord to explain the ASB was “still bad”, and it was affecting her and her son’s health. The landlord treated this as an escalation request. 16 May 2024 The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It noted that the resident was seeking for the ASB to stop. Having assessed its handling of the matter it said it had: Previously warned the neighbour about their behaviour and implemented the GNA.

Offered to install NME in July 2022, which the resident declined because the noise had abated. Warned the neighbour about the implications of breaching the warning and visited them to discuss noise concerns raised. Provided its findings after reviewing evidence the resident had submitted. Attempted to investigate concerns that the neighbour’s relative worked for it in 2023, but noted no evidence was provided by the resident when requested. Liaised with the police. Appointed a single point of contact for the resident to use.

Investigated the concerns about 2 staff members. Its delayed response was not attributable to the staff members but instead other teams. As such it had relayed this to the team to put measures in place to ensure it did not happen again. It also said despite not being provided details it had not identified a member of staff in the region related to the neighbour. However, it was possible that the neighbour did have a relative working for it as it employed 3,500 staff across the country.

It reassured the resident that they would not have any involvement or influence on the management of her case. Acknowledged it had not responded to an ASB report in a timely manner in March 2022 and offered £50 compensation for this. Offered a further £50 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The ASB continues and it is affecting her health as the noise prevents them from getting rest.

She has continued to complete diary sheets and use the noise app, however the landlord has taken no action. 5 March 2025 The landlord offered the resident a further £50 stating it should have compensated her for vulnerabilities during the complaint process. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint The response to reports of ASB Finding Service failure The reports date back to March 2022, when the resident reported disturbances and noise related ASB. It is not clear what action the landlord took with these early reports. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 response. It closed the ASB case on 16 January 2023. Before it did so, during this period, it appropriately, and in accordance with its policy: Spoke to the resident to discuss the reports.

Spoke to the neighbour who accepted there had been only reasonable noise. Contacted the police to verify and corroborate the reports. Completed a risk assessment of the resident. While we have not seen a copy of this, we note it made a referral to the local authority mental health assessment team. The team decided to decline the referral after speaking with the resident. Got the neighbour to sign a GNA. Suggested that the resident install NME and try mediation which the resident declined.

Issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 6 January 2023 after reviewing recordings provided by the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 January 2023 to advise it was closing the case. In this letter it appropriately set out its review of each recording and report. It explained why some of the recordings were not considered to be ASB. While frustrating for the resident to hear, it was reasonable for it to do so as not all behaviours constitute ASB. It also highlighted many of the actions it had taken, demonstrating it was taking her concerns seriously.

It concluded by offering mediation again and offered to conduct a sound test to establish noise transference. It is unclear whether the properties were inspected to consider whether the conditions within were enhancing the noise transference. Nevertheless, these were all reasonable and appropriate steps which we would expect to see from a landlord. The landlord reviewed the footage which the resident believed showed ASB on 23 January 2023. It concluded it was not a breach of the GNA but would flag this with the authorities, this was appropriate.

Regarding another incident on 26 January 2023, it liaised with the police, noting the resident had declined sound testing, mediation and potentially moving. It informed the resident that there was a lack of evidence to corroborate the ASB. It was appropriate for it to explain this to manage her expectations of what action it could take to resolve the ASB. There were no further reports until June 2023. The landlord did not respond to either report in a meaningful way. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its stage 2 response.

In July 2023, it continued to request more information and evidence from the resident but subsequently closed the ASB case as this was not forthcoming. The landlord notified the resident of this appropriately, in accordance with its policy. The resident made a further report on 18 August 2023. The landlord provided a response where it appropriately detailed previous actions it had taken. It reiterated the importance of providing evidence in the context of progressing matters to court.

This was transparent and good practice. It also explained why it was unable to take action in response to that particular report. The landlord also suggested installing the noise app, exploring mutual exchange and reminded the resident its patrolling wardens could offer assistance. This was all appropriate and good practice for it to highlight different options available to her to gather evidence and provide support to achieve a resolution. It also advised that if she was unhappy with the handling of the case, she could make a formal complaint.

This was good practice to remind the resident of this option, given the frequency of reports. The resident reported further noise related ASB on 30 December 2023. The following day the landlord advised it would not take any further action, and the case would be closed. It is not clear why and it should have reasonably explained the reason for this. Therefore, it missed an opportunity to be transparent about why it had made its decision. The resident continued to make further reports of ASB in February 2024.

After this the landlord appropriately: Shared an action plan. This has not been disputed by the resident, but we have not seen a copy of it. Contacted the police for further details. Contacted the neighbour for comments and sent a letter to them advising it was considering legal proceedings. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in accordance with its ASB policy. We also note that the resident while being forthcoming to provide recordings and emailing her concerns, has also declined the suggestion of installing NME and participating in mediation.

Without further evidence, the landlord is limited in the action it can take, as outlined in its ASB policy. We therefore would encourage the resident to engage with the landlord to work towards a resolution. We note that after the internal complaint process the landlord increased its offer of compensation as it considered that it had not taken into account her vulnerabilities when dealing with her reports. We note that the landlord completed a risk assessment in 2022. It then completed further risk assessments after the complaints process ended in August 2024 and December 2024.

There was a 2 year period where no updated risk assessment was completed. The resident had advised the landlord the ASB was affecting her health. As a result, its failure to complete updated risk assessments meant it missed an opportunity to offer further support at an earlier stage. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, we are unable to make a finding of reasonable redress as its revised offer came after the complaints process ended. It missed the opportunity to acknowledge this and put things right as part of its stage 2 investigation.

Instead, we have made a finding of service failure. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order the landlord to pay a further £50. Complaint The response to concerns about staff conduct Finding Service failure There are two elements to this complaint. The first being concerns about a conflict of interest with the neighbour’s relative. The second is concerns that the team had not done enough to protect and support the resident’s wellbeing. The resident first raised concerns about the neighbour’s relative working for the council around 29 August 2023 and the impact of this on her reports of ASB.

The landlord responded to ask for further information so that it could look into the resident’s concerns, despite the council being separate from it. This was appropriate, it showed it was taking her concerns seriously and was prepared to investigate the matter. However, as no evidence was provided it took no further action. This was fair in the circumstances, given the lack of engagement at this stage. The resident raised this again on 4 February 2024, stating she knew the neighbour’s relative worked within the council and this had been confirmed by one of their peers who had done work within her house.

There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this, which was not reasonable. The resident raised this in her complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord having been put on notice should have reasonably added this in its stage 1 response. It was a failing that it did not look at the matter until it was escalated at stage 2. Despite a lack of information provided by the resident, the landlord appropriately investigated the concerns by: Speaking to the relevant team. Conducting further checks.

Reviewing its staff system. Interviewing its staff. By doing so the landlord was able to conclude it had not identified a member of staff in the region related to the neighbour. This was appropriate and demonstrated a thorough investigation into the concerns. The second concern was less specific in nature but related to the general handling of ASB by its staff. In the stage 2 response the landlord confirmed it had spoken to the staff members. It found its staff members had handled the reports of ASB in accordance with the policy.

It further stated that some delays identified in its handling of ASB were attributable to other teams. It said to ensure this did not happen again those teams had put measures in place. This was appropriate and it demonstrated that it was committed to improving its service. Overall, the landlord responded to the reports reasonably. However, when the resident raised concerns for the second time in February 2024, it did not provide a timely response. Which resulted in the resident raising this in her complaint.

This was the cause of distress and inconvenience which could reasonably have been avoided. As such we have found service failure and order the landlord to pay £50 compensation. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for failings that it failed to acknowledge and put right. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.

The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint in 9 working days. This was in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code. The resident escalated the complaint on 12 April 2024. Overall, it took 23 working days to provide its stage 2 response. Given the Code and its policy allows for a total of 25 working days to acknowledge and respond at stage 2, it is not clear why it concluded it had delayed in providing its response. We also note it appropriately sought an extension to provide such a response.

Nevertheless, given the landlord said it found failings, it apologised and offered compensation to put this right, we have found it offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling. Learning The landlord should consider updating its ASB policy to include its approach with risk assessments and action plans. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord’s record keeping was appropriate, and we have not identified any concerns. Communication The landlord’s communication with the resident was appropriate.